Southern Housing (202414476)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202414476 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southern Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
28 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a first-floor studio apartment owned by the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord, asking it to move her lounge radiator to under her bay window as she said it was affecting her eczema. She asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for a radiator to be relocated.
- Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a radiator to be relocated.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s request for a radiator to be relocated
- The landlord failed to offer proportionate compensation for its delay inspecting and then attempting to move the radiator. It did not keep the resident updated and did not respond to her questions about the issue. Despite finding that it could not meet her request based on information from its contractor, it reconsidered and was able to relocate the radiator to her preferred location.
Complaint handling
- The landlord was delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation for a long period, which delayed its stage 2 response. It did not consider this in its complaint response and did not specifically apologise for this or offer compensation.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration, we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £415, made up as follows:
|
No later than 07 January 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 August 2023 |
The resident asked the landlord’s surveyor to move her radiator in her lounge as it was affecting her eczema. She said it had not replied to her previous email requesting this. She attached a letter from her GP (dated April 2023) supporting this. |
|
2 February 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord. The landlord does not have a copy of this correspondence. However, its later reply said the resident complained it had not responded to her request from April 2023 to move her radiator under her bay window, which was affecting her eczema. She re-sent the GP letter to it. |
|
23 February 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed it would inspect the radiator on 23 February 2024 and would make a decision about moving the radiator afterwards. It apologised that it was delayed in arranging the inspection and offered £115 compensation. |
|
15 May 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s contractor inspected the radiator a month ago, and nothing had progressed. She said the landlord did not reply to her email on 18 April 2024 chasing this. |
|
15 October 2024 |
We asked the landlord to reply to the resident’s escalation by 19 November, as there was no evidence that it had replied. |
|
15 November 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it had attempted to install 3 new radiators under the resident’s bay window, and they would either not fit or not produce sufficient heat output for the room. It apologised that it had not made a decision sooner, but believed it had followed its procedure. |
|
16 December 2024 |
The resident raised her complaint with us. She wanted the landlord to relocate her current radiator to 3 radiators under her bay window. |
|
20 December 2024 to 20 March 2025 |
On 20 December 2024, the landlord reconsidered the issue and found alternative radiators that were not available to its contractor. These were a suitable size and heat output for the potential new location. The landlord removed the existing radiator and installed these under the bay window on 20 March 2025. The resident confirmed this on 26 November 2025. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident believed the compensation offered by the landlord was too low for her experience in getting the issue resolved and its failure to communicate with her. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a radiator to be relocated. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- In her initial complaint of 2 February 2024, the resident said she asked the landlord in April 2023 about moving her lounge radiator, preferably under her bay window. She said the current position of the radiator was affecting her eczema, and she provided medical evidence (dated April 2023) to support this.
- In its stage 1 response of 23 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged its delay and apologised for not arranging an inspection of the radiator following the resident’s contact on 16 August 2023 and 2 February 2024. There is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord in April 2023, and as such, the landlord did not refer to this. It appropriately agreed to inspect the radiator on 23 February 2024 and said it would make a decision on relocating it once this was complete.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2024 as she heard nothing back following the inspection of the radiator on 23 February . The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response on 15 November for the length of time it took to respond to the query. Evidence shows it did not update the resident between 4 May and 19 July. It never acknowledged this in its stage 2 response despite the resident chasing this on 6 June, 8 July and 11 July.
- On 19 July 2024, the landlord asked her to arrange an occupational therapist appointment for evidence on relocating the radiator. It never replied to the resident’s concerns of 29 July 2024, on why it was not accepting her medical evidence from April 2023.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it visited recently (evidence shows 6 November), and the radiators its contractor had available to fit in the bay window were either too large for the space or did not have enough heat output for the room. This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue with the materials the landlord believed were the only option available at the time.
- The landlord appropriately reconsidered this in December 2024, finding that other radiators were available outside of its contractor’s merchant supply. It fitted these radiators to the location specified by the resident on 20 March 2025, following delays in the radiators being available.
- The landlord’s compensation policy bases its discretionary compensation on our remedies guidance. It offered £115 compensation at stage 1 for failing to respond, for the resident chasing the issue and for inconvenience and time and trouble. It offered no further compensation at stage 2, stating it had followed its procedure. This was not appropriate, and it should have considered compensation as it did at stage 1 for the further delay and its failure to communicate and update the resident. As such, this was not in accordance with our remedies guidance for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
- In summary, the landlord was delayed in arranging an inspection, and then once it completed this did not update the resident or answer her questions for an extended period. It took appropriate action to move the radiator from November 2024 onwards, but it took too long to start this process. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the total delay or its failure to update and communicate with the resident.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint of 2 February 2024 in accordance with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation of 15 May 2024 in accordance with its complaints policy or the Code. On 15 October 2024, we asked the landlord to respond as the resident said she had received no response. It acknowledged the complaint on 18 October 2024, taking 111 working days (15 May to 18 October) to do this. It exceeded the timescale in its policy by 106 working days.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response in 20 working days from its acknowledgement, which was in accordance with its policy. However, in total, its response took a total of 131 working days, due to its delay in recognising the complaint escalation.
- The landlord did not recognise its delayed complaint response in its stage 2 complaint response, but did say it was sorry for the time it took to “respond to the original query”. It should have apologised and considered compensation specifically for the complaint response delay and its failure to meet its complaint handling standards. Its compensation policy allows discretionary payments for poor complaint handling or when it has failed to meet its standard of service.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord provided no detailed log of what steps it was taking at each point in consideration of relocating the radiator. It often had to chase this internally or with its contractor to find out what was going on. Furthermore, it did not have a copy of the resident’s initial complaint, which impacted our investigation. The landlord could consider the recommendations in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.
Communication
- Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It often failed to respond to, or update the resident. More informative communication could have reassured the resident that it was taking her request to relocate the radiator seriously. It could consider our Attitudes, Respect and Rights spotlight report for more effective service delivery.