Southern Housing (202425580)

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of a ground-floor, 1-bedroom flat. Under a shared ownership lease, a leaseholder buys a share of the property and pays rent to the landlord on the remaining share. We understand that the landlord sold the freehold in 2016, meaning it is itself a tenant of the freeholder. Therefore, the landlord leases the building from the freeholder, who is responsible for maintaining the land and the building structure.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence at the property and the associated insurance documentation.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence at the property and the associated insurance documentation.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that the landlord was not proactive in assisting the resident regarding her concerns about subsidence and in obtaining the insurance documentation from the freeholder. The landlord’s lack of prompt and proactive engagement with the freeholder impeded the resident’s ability to effectively address her concerns.
7. In relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delay at stage 1 and offered redress to put things right. However, it failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 within the Code timescale.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. We cannot consider complaints that concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. Therefore we have-not investigated the actions of the freeholder. Instead, we have focused on the actions of the landlord in relation to its communication with the resident, and considered whether they were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
9. Furthermore, the cherry tree which the resident requested be removed was on public land. As such, it would fall within the local authority’s responsibilities. As such, the decisions made around its removal are made by the local authority and not the landlord. As this part of the complaint relates to the decision of a local authority department, this element would fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO.
10. The landlord provided us with a copy of its tree management policy which applies to all properties owned or managed by the landlord, except those properties where it does not have landlord responsibilities. According to the policy, residents are responsible for the maintenance of trees in their gardens to ensure they are safe and not causing damage. The policy also states that the landlord will remove trees on communal land where they are found to be the primary cause of damage or subsidence. In this case, the landlord did not own the land on which the trees were located, and therefore it was not responsible for their removal.
11. The lease agreement says that the leaseholder is to maintain and keep any tree on the premises in good order. It goes on to say that the landlord will insure the building against fire and other risks. If the building is damaged, the landlord will claim against the policy to repair it. Additionally, the agreement says that the landlord will show the leaseholder any insurance documents if they ask. In relation to the structure of the building, the landlord is responsible for roofs, walls, and foundations, so long as rent and service charges are paid. When the landlord sold the freehold, it was no longer responsible for insuring the building or any repairs regarding its structure. This would be the freeholder’s responsibility.
12. It is not disputed that the resident made considerable efforts to obtain the insurance documents, having sought support from the landlord. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that she had been chasing updates “periodically” since November 2023. In recognition of the time, effort, and the distress and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered the resident £140 in compensation. This offer represented a positive step by the landlord in putting things right.
13. On 10 July 2024, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the insurer’s report following the tree survey. It said it would refer to its legal team in relation to the “the other outstanding matters”. It was appropriate of the landlord to seek advice from its legal team and demonstrated it was actively trying to find a resolution.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord clearly stated its position regarding the removal of the trees, indicating that it would continue to liaise with both the resident and the freeholder. While this was an appropriate stance, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that the landlord made any meaningful efforts to pursue the freeholder for the necessary insurance documentation. Although emails were sent, no legal action was taken to compel the freeholder to fulfil its obligations under the lease. As the resident’s landlord, it had a duty to act in her best interests and ensure that the lease terms were adhered to.
15. The evidence shows that in January and April 2025, the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update on the legal process regarding the building insurance and subsidence. In May 2025, the landlord advised the resident that its legal team had contacted the freeholder regarding the building insurance but had not received a response. No further update has been provided.
16. We acknowledge that the obligation to provide the resident with a copy of the building insurance document ultimately lies with the freeholder, and the delay in supplying these documents was therefore beyond the landlord’s immediate control. The landlord indicated in its stage 2 response that it would continue to actively liaise with the freeholder and escalate matters to its legal team if necessary. However, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord followed through with this commitment in a timely and effective manner. For example, there was very little action taken between issuing the stage 2 response and the resident’s contact with the landlord in January 2025. She contacted the landlord on 8, 17 and 22 January 2025, with no meaningful response being provided to her.
17. It is clear that a more proactive approach, involving prompt and persistent follow-ups with the freeholder, could have mitigated the extended delays experienced by the resident. The resident’s repeated requests for the insurance documentation date back to May 2024, yet the landlord failed to demonstrate it took sufficient action to compel the freeholder to provide this. This lack of proactive management has contributed to prolonged frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
18. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence and associated insurance documentation. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says for findings of maladministration, an award of over £100 may be appropriate where the resident has been distressed or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors but there may be no permanent impact. We therefore order the landlord to pay £300 to put things right for the resident.

19. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
20. The landlord said it acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 June 2024, but we have not seen evidence of this. It did, however, acknowledge the complaint by phone on 31 May 2024, which was reasonable. In addition, the evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 18 June 2024 to apologise for the lack of acknowledgement, which was a positive step (if a little confusing given the evidence supplied).
21. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 July 2024, which was 34 working days after the initial complaint was raised. This exceeded the timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation, which was sufficient to put things right.
22. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 14 July 2024. This was not acknowledged by the landlord, although, she provided additional information on 20 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 25 July 2024, which was 4 working days after the resident’s second communication. On 8 August 2024, it contacted the resident to request an extension until 22 August 2024 to provide its response. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, which aligned with the Code.
23. Overall, there were multiple failings by the landlord in its complaint handling, and the landlord’s offer of £50 did not account for all of these. As such, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have awarded the resident an additional £50 compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

24. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:
    1. It should improve follow-ups to ensure timely communication with the resident to foster transparency and trust.
    2. It could have pursued legal avenues more promptly and persistently to mitigate any delays in resolving the matter for the resident.
    3. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints within its policy timescale. The Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.