Southern Housing (202413994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413994

Southern Housing

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of queries raised by the resident about the building’s intercom system.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 2012. The property is a flat in an estate comprised of blocks of flats. The landlord is a housing association.
In December 2023, the landlord issued a 2022/2023 service charge statement to the resident. This said that a deficit was owed for the year, which he would be billed for after January 2024.
In February 2024, the resident received a higher than usual service charge bill. On 8 February 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the intercom system recently fitted by the landlord in the housing estate. In his complaint, the resident expressed that:
1. the intercom system had only been replaced the previous year at an “extortionate cost”
2. he was displeased with the rise in his service charge on the previous month, which he believed was related to the new intercom system
3. the new intercom system had been out of service for a week, resulting in missed deliveries that the resident had to rearrange
4. there were decorative snags left by the builders after they fitted the last intercom system, which the resident wanted tidying
On 29 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the following:
1. in 2023, the old intercom system was repaired. Due to further faults, the entire system needed replacing in February 2024
2. the rise in service charge was due to a deficit on the resident’s year end statement. The landlord said they had issued a letter explaining the additional charges with the resident’s service charge statement
3. the decorative works requested would be completed on 14 March 2024
On 8 March 2024, the resident escalated his complaint, adding the following aspects:
1. a request for a refund of the service charge paid on 8 February 2024
2. the trade button allowed anyone into the building, which he felt was a security risk
3. there was no evidence from the landlord of any lessons learned
On 17 May 2024, the landlord issued its final response. Due to delays in responding, it offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling. It also stated that:
1. the new intercom installation in 2023 was a temporary measure. This meant the full upgrade in 2024 was necessary
2. only a small amount of the service charge increases related to the intercom system, and the landlord could not issue a refund
3. the successful installation of the new intercom system was delayed due to replacement parts taking 6 weeks to arrive. The landlord then needed additional time to book contractors to complete the work
4. it could not remove the trade button and this was standard practice to facilitate postal and delivery services
The resident remained dissatisfied after the final response, as he felt the temporary measure put in place the previous year was unnecessary. The landlord said the resident has not accepted the offer of compensation. He brought the case to us for investigation on 5 March 2025 and is seeking a full refund of his February 2024 service charge payment of £411.81.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns that the service charge increase was not reasonable and that he should be refunded. We will not investigate complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This report will therefore not determine whether service charges that the resident has queried are reasonable or payable but will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints about the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the Leasehold Advisory Service for advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further. If the resident wants to challenge the reasonableness of his service charges, he may also wish to ask the landlord if it will consider this under its service charge dispute resolution policy.

The landlord’s handling of queries raised by the resident relating to the building’s intercom system

Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the act) gives residents the right to request a summary of the service charge account from their landlord. This allows residents to see a breakdown of the costs a landlord has incurred over the previous accounting period. Section 22 of the act gives residents the right to inspect further information regarding the summary of the service of accounts, including related documents, receipts, invoices, and contracts.
The landlord’s recoverable service charge policy says that:
1. it will give residents clear information about what they are paying for
2. it will charge the resident for any underpayment by adding the amount undercharged to the resident’s rent or service charge account
3. it will issue year end accounts to show what it spent
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will aim to complete repairs in communal areas as quickly as possible.
In its service charge statement sent in December 2023, the landlord provided the resident with the option to make alternative arrangements for paying what he owed, querying the letter, or requesting a list of invoices. This was in line with the landlord’s recoverable service charge policy. There is no evidence that the resident responded to this letter.
After the resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2024, the landlord sent an acknowledgement email the following day saying it would phone the resident on 23 February 2024 to discuss the intercom issues. We have seen evidence to confirm that ongoing work was taking place at that time to resolve the intercom issues. As the landlord knew at the time that there was work taking place, it could have provided information and managed the resident’s expectations. While the landlord’s policies do not outline target response times, considering the above, it was not reasonable to give a 2-week wait time to have a discussion with the resident.
On 12 February 2024, the resident said that a 2-week wait was not acceptable, as the intercom system had already been out of service for 2 weeks. The landlord apologised for the intercom issues. It confirmed that it had asked the contractor responsible for the repairs for an update. It agreed to provide an update by 14 February 2024. The contractor emailed the resident the following day with a detailed update. This email explained that:
1. there was ongoing repair work to intercoms on the estate the resident lived on
2. there had been unforeseen delays due to cabling issues
3. repair work had been booked in for the resident’s block
4. they could send an engineer to the resident’s property that day to attempt to resolve the issue
5. they were sorry that these messages had not been communicated sooner to the resident
In this period, the landlord responded quickly to the emails from the resident. It apologised for the intercom issue and followed up with the contractor as promised. This showed that the landlord had considered the resident’s comments and ensured updates were provided sooner than originally planned. The contractor’s email suggested that the intercom repair work in general was being completed as quickly as possible, in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
On 12 February 2024, the resident had also emailed to request a refund of his service charge, as a new system was only installed the previous year. The landlord failed to acknowledge this request or confirm if it would be added to the stage 1 complaint.
After 12 February 2024, we have seen no further evidence about the functionality of the intercom system and decorative snags. We have made an order in this report for the landlord to ensure that the intercom system is in full working order and decorative works are complete.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 February 2024 to confirm it would provide a “clearer explanation” of the service charges within 10-working days. We have not seen evidence that the landlord followed up on this. While the landlord did send the service charge information via letter in December 2023, it should have followed up with the resident as agreed in its email. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with clear information about what he was paying for.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided an explanation of the increased service charge for February 2024. It explained that it was not related to the intercom system, and was the deficit owed from the previous year. It advised that this had been explained in his service charge statement in December 2023. This was appropriate advice and sufficiently explained the increased service charge amount.
On 1 March 2024, the resident responded to request the full cost of any charges to him which were associated with the intercom upgrade and installation. The resident believed this had formed part of the stage 1 complaint. On 4 March 2024, the landlord said that it did not form part of the stage 1 complaint and offered to forward his query to the service charge team to deal with. We have not seen evidence that the resident responded to this email. We consider that it was reasonable to offer to pass on the query to the appropriate team. However, the colleague dealing with this request did not appear to have an awareness that another colleague was already dealing with a similar request, as was evident in the email sent to the resident on 27 February 2024. Having more than one colleague involved in responding to the resident’s queries created confusion over what was being dealt with, and what should have been being dealt with as part of the formal complaints process.
On 8 March 2024, the resident escalated his complaint, making clear that he believed his full service charge bill for February 2024 was made up of costs associated with the intercom system. The landlord added this to the complaint. In the landlord’s final response letter, it reiterated that the additional charges on the resident’s February 2024 service charge bill related to a deficit owed from the previous year. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for the full cost and charges to him associated with the intercom upgrade and installation. This was not in line with its own policies and the act.
In its final response letter sent on 17 May 2024, the landlord explained that the intercom system was being replaced for a second time because the first replacement in 2023 was a temporary measure. The resident responded to say that he did not accept this explanation and included this as part of his complaint to us. We have reviewed the landlord’s final response letter and consider that it satisfactorily explained the reasons for temporary and new intercom systems.
Since issuing its final response, we have not seen evidence that the landlord has issued the resident a breakdown of the service charges associated with the intercom system. This is not in line with the landlord’s recoverable service charge policy or its legislative responsibilities.
In summary, we have identified the following failings from the landlord in its handling of queries raised by the resident relating to the building’s intercom system:
1. when originally complaining that his intercom was out of service, the landlord gave the resident a 2-week wait time for a response, when it had the capacity and insight to give a reply more quickly. The resident had to insist on a timelier response to achieve this outcome
2. the resident asked the landlord on more than one occasion to tell him what intercom related charges he has paid. This was not provided and was not in line with the landlord’s own policies or the act
3. multiple agents dealing with queries from the resident caused confusion over what was included in the complaint, and what was being responded to separately. For example, the requests for a refund and for a breakdown of intercom related charges
Since issuing its final response letter, we have seen internal emails in April 2025 from the landlord to say that it has sent the resident a revised 2022/2023 year end account of his service charges. This revised version has been corrected “removing all door entry costs.” It is positive that the landlord reviewed the charges and decided to remove the door entry costs. However, as this was done after the complaint was referred to us, it is not taken into consideration when considering if appropriate redress was offered.
We have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of queries raised by the resident relating to the building’s intercom system. We recognise the positive steps taken by the landlord in December 2023 and on 4 March 2024. However, the failures identified caused the resident inconvenience, distress and increased time and trouble taken when trying to reach a resolution.
We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged these failings or made attempts to put them right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it will acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days. If more time is needed, reasons would be explained to the resident and a new response date agreed. For a stage 2 complaint, this extension would not exceed an additional 20-working days.
The landlord’s policy also says that a designated team member will speak with the resident to gather all details relating to their case, understand the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking.
On 9 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to express dissatisfaction with the intercom system and service charge increase. The landlord acknowledged the complaint one working day late on 19 February 2024. The landlord’s stage one response was sent 4-working days late on 29 February 2024. These delays were not acknowledged by the landlord.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of missing deliveries due to the intercom system not working.
Following the resident’s email of 1 March 2024, the landlord’s response on 4 March 2024 confirmed that the full cost of the intercom system and a refund request had not made up the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The resident raised his refund request within a few days of the stage 1 complaint being logged. We have not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about the complaint before issuing its response. This could have prevented the refund aspect of the complaint being missed or ensured it was dealt with separately. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the stage 1 complaint was now closed and the resident could add the additional elements to his stage 2 complaint if he wished to escalate it. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to include the request for the refund in the original complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint adding the request for a refund and a complaint about the trade button allowing people into the building. 12-working days later, the landlord sent an acknowledgement. This was outside the landlord’s agreed time limits.
On 11 April 2024, the resident emailed the landlord chasing up the final response. On 15 May 2024, he chased it up again. By this time, the resident had not had any correspondence from the landlord for 32-working days. The resident also told the landlord in an email that he was having to phone many times. The landlord has not provided communication records but did not dispute this. The landlord responded the same day, asking for an additional 5-working days for this to be reviewed. It did not provide a reason for its need for additional time. The break in communication and late response without reason was not appropriate.
On 17 May 2025, the landlord issued its final response. This was 37-working days from the date of acknowledgement. The landlord’s response times were not appropriate as they were not in line with its policy.
In its final response, the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a refund. It appropriately explained the reason for the charges and why it would be unable to issue a refund. This was reasonable and satisfactorily answered this aspect of the complaint. However, it did not respond to other complaint aspects, such as the distress and inconvenience caused by the intercom being out of service, the resident missing deliveries, an explanation of costs associated with the intercom system and identifying opportunities to learn from lessons.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures. It offered the resident £100. This was made up of £50 to reflect the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint and £50 to for its delayed final response. This was in line with its compensation framework, which states that service failures, such as complaint handling, can attract compensation of up to £50. It is positive that the landlord recognised this and offered some level of redress. However, we do not consider that it sufficiently recognised and offered redress for all its failings.
We have considered the additional complaint handling failures as follows:

i. not responding to all aspects of the complaint originally raised

ii. not including the additional complaint aspects raised by the resident shortly after stage 1 complaint was logged

iii. a delay in dealing with the stage 1 complaint

iv. a break in communication with the resident during the stage 2 complaint process, resulting in the resident having to phone and email the landlord for updates

v. the landlord has not identified any lessons learned from its complaint handling failures

We have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and order the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected the resident, including distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of queries raised by the resident relating to the building’s intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident a total of £350. This is made up of:

i. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s queries relating to the intercom system.

ii. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

iii. This is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord in its final response. Any compensation already paid in relation to this complaint can be deducted from the total.

iv. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt owed.

Provided the resident with any service charge related information he has requested, with clarity on how this was calculated, including any year end deficit.
Completed the intercom repairs and decorative works.