Southern Housing (202423371)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202423371 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southern Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 February 2026 |
Background
- The resident raised concerns about communal cleaning. She said the cleaners had not completed the work for a few weeks and had not emptied the bins. When the cleaning resumed, she said the team did not attend as often as before, and the standard fell short. She said she was paying a higher service charge while the frequency and quality of services declined.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Concerns about the standard and frequency of communal cleaning and the level of service charge.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard and frequency of communal cleaning and the level of service charge.
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Communal cleaning and the level of service charge
- The landlord failed to respond to the residents concerns about service charges. While it addressed some of the concerns about the communal cleaning, it did not provide a comprehensive response.
Associated complaint
- The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered proportionate 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 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 16 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows:
|
No later than 16 March 2026 |
|
3 |
The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the reasonableness and level of service charge. It must provide a breakdown of costs for the relevant years, a service charge budget and statement. |
No later than 16 March 2026 |
|
4 |
The landlord must provide a full breakdown of charges for the cleaning service and the frequency of cleaning service. It must explain why it reduced the frequency of service but did not reduce the service charge. It must also confirm that the adjustment it offered at stage 1 was made and provide evidence of this. The landlord should provide this response and clarification in writing to the resident and us. |
No later than 16 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 as agreed in its stage 1 complaint response to acknowledge poor complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress for the associated complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid. |
|
The landlord should consider if it is appropriate to provide residents with a refund for the year in which the cleaning service was reduced and the service charge did not reflect this. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
22 April 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said the communal area had not been cleaned for several weeks and the landlord was aware in advance of the cleaner leaving. She said the door entry mats had not been replaced. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the communal cleaning reinstated and mats replaced. She also wanted compensation or a refund of the service charge for the period with no cleaner. |
|
29 April 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. |
|
6 June 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the delay. It explained it had brought the cleaning in‑house as it identified the cleaner was not fulfilling their duties. It acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the current cleaning standards. It agreed to carry out a joint inspection with her to clarify expectations and address concerns. It also said it would investigate who removed the mats and replace them if it was responsible. It confirmed it would adjust the service charge costs to reflect the lack of service during that period, which would appear on the final statement. It offered £50 compensation for poor complaint handling. |
|
19 August 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not paid the compensation and had not discussed any reduction in rent to reflect the reduced services. She reported the bins in the communal areas had not been cleared. She said the communal cleaning had reduced to once a week and the quality had declined while the service charge remained the same. |
|
28 August 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. |
|
9 September 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that, before it took over the property, an external contractor cleared the external bins. It said after bringing the cleaning service in house, responsibility for the external bins transferred to the grounds maintenance team. However, this change had not been communicated to the resident or the relevant team.
The landlord confirmed cleaning was still carried out weekly, but it did not include the external bins. It said the grounds maintenance team would clear the bins until staff numbers increased, after which the task would move to a 2 week schedule. It said it could not reimburse the service charge and that compensating for communal items would not align with its compensation policy. It offered £50 to recognise the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought the complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said it did not resolve her main concern that she was paying for services and not receiving them. She wants it to refund the cleaning element of the service charge to reflect the reduced service for the relevant 1 year period. She also wants the compensation it offered to be paid. |
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 |
Concerns about the standard and frequency of communal cleaning and the level of service charge. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we have not considered
- The resident raised concerns about the level of service charge. We cannot consider complaints about the level of rent or service charge or the amount of any rent or service charge increase. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.
What we have considered
- The resident complained that the landlord reduced the frequency and standard of cleaning in communal areas from 3 times per week to once a week. She added that the landlord stopped clearing the bins. However, she continued to pay the same service charge and felt she was not getting value for money.
- We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord communicated these changes at the time. It also failed to communicate internally to ensure its grounds maintenance team was aware that it should be clearing the bins. It would have been good practice to communicate any changes in service to residents and effectively manage any change internally to prevent any unnecessary delays in service.
- The landlord’s service charge policy confirms it issues estimated costs for the year ahead. Its complaints policy explains residents can raise queries about service charges, including the standard of services delivered, through the complaints process. Its service charge dispute resolution policy also states that issues relating to clarity and transparency of information, and the frequency and standard of services, are handled under the complaints policy. However, the complaint responses do not clearly show that it directly addressed the resident’s concerns about the service charges. It did not respond in line with its policy on these matters. This likely caused further frustration for the resident.
- The landlord said in its stage 1 response it experienced issues when transferring the cleaning service in-house. It stated these issues had since been resolved. It said it would adjust the service charge costs to reflect the cleaner’s non-attendance over a 4‑week period. It confirmed this adjustment would appear on the final statement. However, the resident said she had not been informed of any adjustment. It later stated in its stage 2 response that it could not reimburse service charges. It did not provide any further clarification or explanation. It also failed to explain the reduced attendance being charged at the same rate.
- The landlord said it would meet the resident for a joint inspection to clarify standards and check the quality of cleaning. It confirmed the cleaning service was in place and would continue once a week. This was positive action, however, the inspection did not take place until January 2025, more than six months later.
- The landlord offered £50 at both stage 1 and stage 2 to address different failings. It was not clear whether its £50 offer at stage 2 was in addition to its stage 1 offer. It did not pay this until February 2025. Further, it only paid £50, so it is unclear whether this was intended as compensation for complaint handling or for inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the substantive complaint. It should ensure that where it commits to offering a remedy in its complaint responses, that it follows through with the identified actions without unreasonable delay.
- The landlord explained staff shortages and the move to in‑house cleaners caused a reduction in service. It confirmed the cleaner would continue to attend weekly and the grounds maintenance team would address the bins. However, it did not provide clarification or a breakdown of the service charge to show the frequency of cleaning or how it calculated the charges. It also failed to communicate clearly with her about the cleaning service or what she should expect going forward. She said it has since applied a reduced rate from April 2025 but has not considered the previous year in which she overpaid for the reduced service. She is also not clear if the adjustment for the 4 week period of no cleaning was included.
- In summary, the landlord failed to fully respond to the resident’s concerns about the service charges.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint within its policy timeframe, but it issued its stage 1 response 16 working days late. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 for poor complaint handling. This was proportionate to the delay experienced. However, it should be noted that the resident had to chase it for the compensation, and the payment was not made until February 2025, almost 8 months after the initial response. The landlord should ensure that when it commits to a remedy in its complaint responses, it follows through with the required actions.
- The landlord acknowledged the escalation request with a slight delay but provided its stage 2 complaint response within its policy timeframe.
Learning
General
- The landlord should consider how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding.
Communication
- Overall, the landlord communicated poorly. Effective communication reassures residents that the landlord is considering and addressing their concerns. It also helps to ensure internal teams understand any additional duties.
- The landlord should consider how it communicates services and charges. It needs to be transparent when communicating changes, the frequency of services, and how any changes in service impact on charges.