From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southern Housing (202406935)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406935

Southern Housing

30 April 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. The resident’s reports of lighting and electrical issues in her home.
    2. The resident’s report about the condition of the patio.
    3. A reported issue with the bathroom door following a repair to the bathroom floor.
  2. This service had also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord who is a housing association. She moved to the property via a mutual exchange on 16 June 2016. The property is a detached 4 bedroom house. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities within the household. The property transferred to the landlord from another housing association landlord in February 2023.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2023 to report an issue with the lighting in her living room. She said that the wall lights “kept blowing”. Further she said that her previous landlord was to fit a central ceiling light in the living room, as she did not have one. She also reported an issue with her garden fence and that the patio area at the rear of the garden was sinking. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised the relevant works orders on 27 March 2023.
  3. On 9 November 2023 the resident reported that the lights upstairs in her property were not working and the landlord raised a works order. It asked its contractor to investigate and repair the faulty lighting. The landlord raised further orders for electrical works at the property on 21 December 2023 and 9 February 2024.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 March 2024. In this she said that there had been ongoing issues with her home since October 2023. She set out the detail of the repairs she had reported to the lighting in her home, together with the poor condition of the patio and garden fence. She said that she felt that this did not provide for a safe and secure living environment. She highlighted that this was affecting members of her family who were autistic and had sensory sensitivities. She wanted the landlord to provide a resolution and a timeline for it to complete the repairs. She said that a range of contractors had attended and that they had also missed several appointments.
  5. On 26 March 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had opened a complaint case. It encouraged her to continue to engage with its repairs service while it investigated her complaint. It contacted her on 3 April 2024 to discuss her complaint. During the call, the resident described the issues with the lighting, the patio, and the garden fence. She also reported an issue with the bathroom door following recent flooring works, where the door had not been rehung correctly. She explained that she had 2 children with autism and ADHD. The landlord followed up with the resident in writing and said that it would provide a response to her complaint by 17 April 2024.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 April 2024 to explain that it needed more time to investigate her complaint. It would now reply by 1 May 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2024. In this it set out the details of the resident’s complaint and the list of outstanding repairs she had raised. It provided background to the actions it had taken to address each of the repairs. In summary:
    1. Upstairs and lounge lighting: It set out the work orders that it had raised. It noted that its contractor had recommended a full electrical test as a follow on to the order on 27 March 2023. It noted that it had not done this. It had missed an appointment in November 2023. Its electrician attended on 21 December 2023. The electrician confirmed that it needed to rewire the lighting. In response to her complaint, it had raised a new order on 11 April 2024. This covered all the electrical issues highlighted by the resident and it was to carry out a full electrical inspection. Its contractor attended on 22 April 2024, but due to access issues with the loft space it was to reattend on 3 May 2024.
    2. Damaged fence line: The resident had reported this on 27 March 2023. Its operative attended on 9 August 2023. It arranged follow on works for 23 November 2023, but it did not attend this appointment. It raised a new repair order on 9 February 2024, and it attended an appointment on 28 February 2024. It asked the resident to move items from in front of the fence. Once she had done this, it asked that she contact it to arrange for it to complete the work.
    3. Uneven patio: It had raised a works order for the uneven patio on 27 March 2023. It inspected this on 9 August 2023. It took no further action as it “considered the original works to be part of a private installation not completed by the landlord”. It raised a new order on 9 February 2024 and attended on 28 February 2024. It confirmed that major works were needed to the patio. It said that in “usual circumstances, any garden works inclusive of patio areas [were the] resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain. Due to this, works wouldn’t be raised on your behalf to make the area good”. As the property had transferred from another housing association it had checked its repairing responsibilities. It had concluded that it had a responsibility to repair the patio. It had asked its contractor to provide a quote for the works by 3 May 2024. Once it received and approved the quote, its contractor would arrange the works.
    4. Flooring and bathroom sliding door: Having inspected the flooring on 21 November 2023, it referred the work to its subcontractor. It then completed the works in March 2024. It had spoken with the contractor about the issue the resident had raised with the door. Its contractor said that it had not carried out any works to or adjusted the door. As internal doors were the resident’s responsibility it was unable to raise a repair for the door.
    5. Action plan: It said that its electrician would attend by 3 May 2024 to carry out a full electrical inspection. It would also obtain a quote for the works to the patio area by 3 May 2024 and approve this by 20 May 2024.
    6. It upheld her complaint. It apologised for its service failure in completing these repairs, for the delay and missed appointments. It noted the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the repeated visits to her home.
    7. It made an offer of £730 compensation. This included £600 for the impact and inconvenience of the repair delays, £60 for its failure to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe, £40 for 2 missed appointments, £15 for its failure to action follow on works and £15 for failure to progress repairs following repeat visits.
  8. The resident replied to the landlord on 2 May 2024. She was unhappy with the outcome and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that she felt that she still had no actual date for when it would carry out the electrical repairs. Further, it had incorrectly said that it had provided her with emergency lighting. She had bought her own lamps for use upstairs. She wanted to know when the rewiring would be done. She also disputed the landlord’s response about the bathroom door. She said that its contractor had removed the door while fitting the new flooring. It had not been rehung it properly. The landlord contacted the resident the same day, acknowledging her request to escalate her complaint. It noted her unhappiness with the outcome at stage 1 and that there would be more repeat visits. It also noted that she felt that the compensation offered did not reflect the impact on her family over the last year.
  9. On 4 June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to extend the time for its investigation. It said that it would now reply by 2 July 2024. It noted that there were several repairs outstanding, and it did not want to reply while this was the position. It said it had escalated these with its repairs service and hoped that these would be completed by 2 July 2024. It wrote again on 31 July 2024. It said that “it continued to work in the background to ensure that the repairs were completed”. It said that it had received quotes and that these were waiting approval. The resident chased updates on her complaint on 2 and 16 August 2024.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. It acknowledged that she was unhappy with the action in place and that she had questioned some of the detail of its stage 1 response. It noted that she wanted the outstanding issues resolved and that she was seeking increased compensation. In response the landlord said:
    1. Its contractor had confirmed that it did not remove or adjust the bathroom door as part of the flooring works. It was the resident’s responsibility to repair the internal door.
    2. It had confirmed that the responsibility for the patio was with the resident. If she was concerned that the broken and uneven slabs posed a health and safety risk, it would remove these. It would not replace them. It would not be carrying out any further works to the patio.
    3. It had approved the quotes it had received for further works to the electrics. It had raised works orders for the pendant lighting both upstairs and downstairs, together with a separate order for the bathroom and outdoor lighting.
    4. It upheld her complaint due to the significant delay in completing the electrical works. It also acknowledged the delay in confirming responsibility for the patio repairs. It noted the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to contact it for updates. It further noted that there had been a delay in its stage 2 response. It offered an increased amount of compensation of £1070. It set out that in addition to the £730 awarded in its stage 1, it offered her a further £340. This was broken down as:
      1. £250 for the inconvenience caused.
      2. £15 for a failure to respond to her calls and emails.
      3. £50 for its poor complaint handling.
      4. £25 for its failure to “respond to timescales”.
    5. It further set out its learning from her complaint. It recognised the importance of holding its contractors and staff accountable, the importance of communicating with residents and ensuring that it meets its service standards.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident contacted us on 2 September 2024 about her complaint. She said that the landlord had concluded her complaint and had backtracked on the work it had agreed to do. She said that she felt that she it had left her in an unsafe environment.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it raised a new works order for the electrical repairs on 14 October 2024. Its contractor then provided a quote on 24 October 2024, and it approved this on 1 November 2024. Its contractor visited the resident on 25 November 2024. The contractor noted that the resident did not want the works to go ahead as it was proposing to use surface mounted trunking. She did not believe that this was like for like and felt that the cables should be run through the walls. She further said that this would be unsafe, particularly as her children had autism and her grandchildren who visited regularly were toddlers.
  3. The landlord’s internal communication, following its contractors feedback, said that when carrying out a rewire to its properties it did not chase cabling into the wall. It said that this was due to the disruption, time, and cost of doing so. On 31 January 2025 the landlord’s records show that it was to arrange for an electrical installation condition report (EICR) to show the extent of the works needed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has explained to the Service that the outstanding repairs to her home had a negative impact on her and her family, specifically her autistic sons. The Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord’s obligations, policy, and procedures

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement and has provided a sample agreement. This is a general need assured agreement from 2018. This agreement sets out the responsibility for repairs on both the landlord and the resident. It says that the landlord will make sure that it keeps the structure and exterior of the home repaired. Further, it will make sure that “all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order”. The agreement says that it is the resident’s responsibility to do minor repairs and replacements. It gives an example of tap washers or bulbs. The agreement says that the resident must promptly report repairs that the landlord is responsible for. There is a list of emergency and urgent repairs. This includes partial loss of electrical power and unsafe power, lighting socket or electrical fitting.
  2. The agreement says that the resident must allow the landlord and its contractors access to their home to carry out inspections and repairs. It is to provide 24 hours’ notice unless it is an emergency. It is the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintaining any improvements, fixtures, and fittings that they install in their home. The agreement further provides guidance on how it expects the resident to maintain any garden let as part of the tenancy. It says that the garden is to be kept cultivated and in a tidy condition.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy, at appendix, provides a list of items for which the resident and the landlord are responsible. This echoes the landlord’s responsibilities as set out in the tenancy agreement, for the structure and exterior of the home and all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, and heating. This further says that the landlord is responsible for boundary fences, but not those shared with neighbours. Further the landlord is responsible for “front & rear paths, steps or other access points…”. Its repairs policy sets out its service standards and its aim to complete a repair in one visit. It further says that it will confirm appointments for a repair “as soon as possible”.
  4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. The act says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  5. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It is then to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. There is provision within the policy for it to extend its complaint response time by up to 10 working days. It notes that where it is proposing an extension of longer than 10 working days this must be done, where possible, in agreement with the resident.

Lighting and electrical issues

  1. The resident first reported that the lighting in her living room was faulty in March 2023. She also requested the installation of a central ceiling light. Its contractor attended on 4 April 2023 and recommended that it carry out an electrical installation condition report (EICR). It noted that a “board check” had been completed in 2022 and asked for a copy of this. The landlord did not follow this up. It acknowledged its failure to act on this recommendation its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The resident raised further issues with the lighting in her home in November 2023, as the upstairs lighting was not working. The landlord did not address the resident’s reported repairs in a timely manner, attending the property on 21 December 2023. This was after an earlier missed appointment. On this occasion its contractor reported back that the property needed to be rewired. There is no evidence that it followed this through, and the resident was left having to raise a formal complaint as the issues with her electrics remained.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that it repaired the electrics to the upstairs of the property in May 2024. It noted that on 20 May 2024 it had “rewired all upstairs lights from the board”. The landlord raised a new works order on 14 October 2024. This noted that there was no ceiling light in the living room and only one spotlight working. Further in recorded that sockets in the kitchen were not working. The lighting issue in this order mirrors the resident’s initial report made March 2023. The order further said that the “whole property needs rewiring”. The contractor provided a quote for works to rewire the property on 24 October 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged for an EICR to be done, either following the works completed in May 2024 or as part of the quotation process in October 2024. The landlord has an EICR policy which says that it will carry out an EICR after any significant work is carried out to an electrical installation. Given the range of issues highlighted by the resident and the works that it had carried out it would have been appropriate for this to have been done at either of these stages. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its own policy in respect of electrical safety checks.
  4. Having approved the quotation for works to rewire the property, the landlord’s contractor visited the resident to discuss the works it would do. She declined the work. The contractor had told her that it would do the rewiring using surface trunking. The resident said that she felt that to rewire the property using trunking would be both unsightly and present a potential hazard to her children. The landlord’s contractor suggested to the landlord that it meet the resident, along with the landlord to further discuss her concerns and its approach. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this recommendation. The landlord has provided a record of internal contact with its housing management service and a question raised as to whether the resident had support from occupational therapy. There is no record of any further conversations with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to find a resolution to the resident’s concerns about how the work was to be done and her complaint.
  5. There was further internal correspondence about this issue in January 2025. This confirmed the landlord’s position that it would use trunking to rewire a property. It further noted the lack of an EICR, and it was to arrange this. This was a backward step. As outlined previously there were earlier opportunities for the landlord to complete an EICR in March 2023, May or October 2024. The landlord did not undertake any effective follow up to the repair orders it raised, leaving the resident to have to chase repairs to the property. It did not complete the works requested in March 2023, raising these again in October 2024. Despite the recommendation of its contractor, and the detail of its own policy, it did not complete an EICR at any stage. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
  6. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge the failures in following through the electrical repairs and set actions in place as an outcome to its stage 1 complaint. However, there were unacceptable delays in completing these. While the resident’s refusal in November 2024, to allow it to carry out the works using surface trunking, may have contributed to a delay in the works being progressed, the landlord took no action to work with the resident about her concerns. She had clearly expressed her reasons for not wanting it to use surface trunking in rewiring he home, but there was no clear or timely follow up by the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have met with the resident to discuss with her why it proposed to use surface trunking and consider her objections. That it did not do so was a failure. Indeed, there is no evidence that it followed this up until January 2025. It is appropriate for the landlord to consider costs and to ensure that it undertakes the most appropriate and cost effective solution. It has not however maintained close and timely oversight on the repairs to the resident’s home or appropriately follow through on its contractor’s recommendations at each stage. This was a failure by the landlord.
  7. The landlord did not complete repairs to the electrical installation within the resident’s home within a reasonable period. It also did not carry out a EICR despite the recommendations of its electrical contractors. Further, it did not take steps to find a resolution to the objections raised by the resident in how it proposed to complete the works. There was maladministration in its handling of this issue.
  8. The landlord must now take all necessary steps to confirm the safety of the electrics within the resident’s property and complete the works needed. An order has been made for the landlord to undertake an EICR at the resident’s property. This should confirm the safety of the electrical installation. It should then complete all remedial works identified. This should include the installation of a central ceiling light in the resident’s living room. If, as expected this recommends that the property is required, the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss with her how it will do this and obtain her agreement to proceed.

Condition of the patio

  1. Having raised an issue with her patio in March 2023, the outcome of the landlord’s initial inspection was to note that it was not responsible for the works needed. There is however no evidence that it communicated this to the resident. It then raised a further order in February 2024, and this found that major works were needed. Its stage 1 complaint response set out that “in normal circumstances” it would not carry out repairs to the patio. This was appropriate. It went on to say that it had checked her tenancy agreement and decided that it had a responsibility for the work. In its action plan it said that it would arrange for a quote for the works and then carry these out. In its stage 2 complaint response it told the resident that the patio was her responsibility and that it would not do the work. Through its complaint handling the landlord provided mixed messages and raised the resident’s expectation.
  2. The tenancy agreement presented by the landlord is silent on the maintenance of paved areas to the garden. It says that the resident only has responsibility for minor repairs. This conflicts with the landlord’s own repairs policy. As the resident had transferred from another housing association landlord, the tenancy agreement would be the primary document on which the landlord based its decisions around repair responsibilities. Having accepted this responsibility and setting out a clear action plan within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord should have followed this through. It was a failure that it did not do so.
  3. There was a raised expectation for the resident that the landlord would complete the works to her patio. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response and offered no apology for the change in its approach. Its offer to remove broken and uneven slabs but not to replace them was an ineffective solution, as this could only leave the patio in a poorer state of repair. The landlord should have offered a more detailed explanation as to the basis for its changed decision. To not do so was a failure which left the resident frustrated at its actions. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this.
  4. The landlord should meet with the resident and discuss undertaking patch repairs to the patio in response to her concerns about a health and safety hazard. The landlord should then provide the resident with clear information about its repairing responsibilities for the future.

The bathroom door

  1. Within her complaint the resident reported to the landlord that its contractor had failed to rehang her bathroom door correctly following works to replace the bathroom floor. This was a sliding door. The resident said that the contractor removed the door and the bottom track while installing the new flooring and did not fit this back correctly. This had left the door to swing. Through its complaint investigations the landlord has, at both stages, followed up with its contractor. The contractor has said that it did not remove the door. It informed the resident of this. In considering the resident’s report as part of her initial complaint, there was an opportunity for the landlord to have completed a post inspection of the work by its contractor to the bathroom floor and through this discuss the resident’s concerns around her door. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so and allowed it to see firsthand what the issue was.
  2. While we do not disbelieve the resident, we are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. No direct evidence has been provided by either the resident or the landlord to support the statements made. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure.
  3. It has been recommended that the landlord resolves the issue with the door, refitting the bottom track to allow the door to slide effectively, to rebuilding the landlord-tenant relationship.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling through stage 1 of its process was appropriate, despite an initial delay in its acknowledgment of her complaint. It contacted the resident to discuss the detail of her complaint and informed her that there would be a delay in its reply. It completed an investigation of each element and provided a detailed response. It appropriately apologised for the delays that had occurred in its handling of her repairs and set out a plan for future action. It also offered a level of compensation considered reasonable in the circumstances of her complaint.
  2. Following the escalation of her complaint, the actions set out at stage 1 were not effectively progressed. There were also significant delays in it providing its final reply. Having correctly accepted, acknowledged, and then let her know of an extension to its response time, it did not communicate with the resident between 2 July and 31 July 2024. At this point it said that it was continuing to “work in the background” as there were several repairs outstanding. It said that it wanted to resolve these before it responded to her complaint. This falls outside the requirements of this service’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). It is expected that a landlord provides a reply to a complaint when “the answer to the complaint is known” not when it has completed all the outstanding actions or repairs. Outstanding actions must then be tracked and actioned promptly.
  3. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 27 August 2024, 82 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a failure by the landlord.
  4. Despite the delays in it providing the complaint response the landlord has still not completed the electrical works needed to the resident’s home. Further it had changed its position about the repair to the patio without providing the resident with a clear explanation or an apology on this. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. The landlord offered an increased amount of compensation within its stage 2. While this is considered appropriate in the context of the resident’s complaint at the time, as there were further delays in actioning the repairs, a failure to follow through on its own contractor’s recommendations a further award has been an order. This is set in line with the services guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported lighting and electrical issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the condition of the patio.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported issue with the bathroom door following a repair to the bathroom door.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation. This is calculated as follows:
      1. £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in the repairs to her home.
      2. £150 for its poor communication around repairs to her patio.
      3. £100 for the delays in its complaint handling.
      4. £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint in the first instance and escalate this to this service to progress repairs.
      5. This amount is in addition to the sum of £1070 previously paid to the resident through its own complaint’s process.
  2. Arrange to meet with the resident to discuss undertaking patch repairs to the patio, responding to her concerns of a health and safety hazard. To show its compliance the landlord should provide this service with the details of its meeting with the resident and an action plan for the works it will undertake.
  3. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Complete an EICR at the resident’s property. This should confirm the safety of the electrical installation.
  4. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Complete, as far as possible, all remedial works identified within the EICR.
    2. In addition, this should include the installation of a central ceiling light in the resident’s living room.
    3. If, as expected, this recommends that the property is rewired, the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss how it will do this and obtain her agreement to go ahead.
    4. As evidence of its compliance, the landlord should provide a copy of the EICR and its action plan to carry out all the identified repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should arrange to carry out the necessary repair to the bathroom door as a gesture of goodwill given the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, as set out within this report.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with information about future responsibility for repairs of both parties.