Southern Housing (202430139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430139

Southern Housing

19 August 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:
1. handling of repairs to windows and external doors at the property.
2. record keeping.
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident moved to the property by way of mutual exchange on 2 May 2022. She has an assured tenancy agreement. The resident told the landlord during her complaint that she suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, anxiety, and depression. She also explained that her son has ADHD and autism.
The landlord said that during May 2023 it had attended to adjust the front and back doors. Its contractor had reported that one of the bedroom windows was broken, but did not take further action. It also attended an emergency appointment in March 2024 because the back door handle had fallen off and the mechanism was not working. It “made safe” the door with a temporary night lock while it ordered a new mechanism.
The resident made a complaint on 29 April 2024. She said:
1. When she moved in, the outgoing tenant had left the property in poor condition. This included leaving possessions she could not afford to remove, holes and rubbish throughout the property and excrement in the garden.
2. the windows and doors were broken. The property was unsecured, and she was paying additional heating costs to warm her home.
3. she had told the landlord about the issues over 2 years, but nothing had been done. The resident added that she suffered with OCD, anxiety, and depression, and the situation had impacted her mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 June 2024. It said:
1. it had attended on 5 March 2024, as an emergency, to make safe the back door while it ordered a new mechanism.
2. it would “chase” to see if this had been ordered. It attended on 9 May 2024 and found all the windows needed servicing.
3. it attended on 21 June 2024 to overhaul the windows but could not gain access.
4. it also noted that the front and back doors had been adjusted in May 2024 and on 31 August, during an unrelated appointment, it found the window in one of the bedrooms was broken.
5. it would ask a surveyor to attend within 4 weeks so it could consider the resident’s request to replace the doors and windows.
6. it also wished to offer £200 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £60 for delays.
  2. £15 for repeated visits.
  3. £125 for the impact, time, and trouble caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 September 2024. She felt repairs were needed urgently. She was also concerned that her son could “escape” as the windows were not secure.
The landlord said it had contacted the relevant department and stressed the urgency of the repairs. It asked the resident to allow 10 working days for an acknowledgement. The landlord surveyed the property in or around October 2024. It received a quote for the renewal of the windows throughout the property and the front and back door.
The resident tried to escalate her complaint again on 6 November 2024 as her concerns had yet to be resolved. She also added:
1. she had made “numerous” calls about the repairs, but nothing had been done.
2. the door had gaps at the bottom causing water ingress when it rained. There were no safety locks on the windows, and they were blowing open when it was windy and she could not secure them.
3. the windows and doors were draughty, causing additional cost to heat the property. She said she had to put pillows down to block the gaps.
4. she did not feel safe in her home.
We asked the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint on 4 April 2025. It acknowledged the complaint the same day and requested an extension to 12 May 2025 to respond. It issued its stage 2 response on 1 May 2025. Within this, it confirmed its repairs team would be in touch to arrange works for the door and windows by 22 May 2025. It had appointed a single point of contact to oversee the works. It had asked the resident to provide copies of her energy bills so it could consider reimbursing her for any increased usage. The landlord added that it wished to offer £705 compensation, broken down as:
1. £600 for inconvenience caused.
2. £25 for its failure to respond to timescales.
3. £15 for its failure to follow the process.
4. £15 because the resident had to chase it.
5. £50 for its poor complaint handling.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 2 June 2025. She said she wished for the repairs to be completed, and she was worried about the risk posed to her child as there were no safety locks. She was also unhappy as she had yet to be compensated for her energy costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed us that the landlord’s handling of matters had a negative impact on her mental health. We are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
We acknowledge that the resident told us that the issues with her windows and doors had been ongoing since 2022. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2023. This is 12 months before the resident made her complaint to the landlord. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of matters arising so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues expeditiously, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). Throughout this report we refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The records the landlord provided in response to our evidence request are limited. The majority of the information it provided about the repairs it had carried out were set out in its formal complaint responses. It provided limited supporting evidence from its repair logs about its visits. Such evidence is created contemporaneously and is generally more reliable. The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture important information, including:
1. when the resident made reports.
2. details of its operatives’ findings during inspections, including remedial work and details about what they were.
3. the reason for its delays.
For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its records. To put things right, the landlord must conduct a case review to identify opportunities to make its record keeping more robust.

Repairs to the doors and windows

The landlord has a legal obligation to carry out essential repairs to maintain the structure and exterior of the property, this includes windows and external doors.
The landlord’s stage 1 response set out that it was aware from 9 May 2023 that the resident’s windows needed to be serviced. However, it did not set out how it became aware of the issue, the condition of the windows at inspection or what action was taken to service the windows.
It also missed an opportunity to document the condition of the windows. Further, its failure to act on its contractor’s recommendations to service the windows also contributed to the delay the resident experienced. Therefore, we could not be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably in response to the issues with the windows it was aware of.
Similarly, the landlord said it adjusted the front and back doors on 10 May 2023. However, it is unclear how and when the landlord became aware it needed to attend, what it found, its opinion on the condition of the doors, or why it was necessary to adjust the doors. such information is key for establishing whether the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord should also ensure that it is recording such information so that it can review its own performance and whether it is meeting service standards.
We understand the landlord attended on a separate occasion in May 2023 to conduct work on the bathroom. While there, its contractor said the window in the child’s bedroom was broken. We have seen evidence the resident had already reported this to the landlord. There is no other evidence relating to this, and we have seen nothing to demonstrate that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate this further.
The resident reported on 5 March 2024 that her property was not secure. The landlord said it arranged for an emergency visit the same day to make the door safe. We have not been provided with evidence to confirm that it met the 6-hour response time in its repairs policy. It attempted to re-attend on 11 March 2024, but it was unable to access the property. While this may have been due to the resident’s availability, the lack of clarity around the repair details and missed access contributed to the delays in addressing the issue. Photos of a calling card support that an attempt was made, but no further steps were documented to engage with the resident about this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that a further attempt to contact the resident was made given that the issue remained unresolved.
When the landlord attended the property on 15 March 2024, it determined that a door mechanism needed replacing. There is no evidence the part was ordered or follow up work was started. Whether this was due to an oversight by the contractor or a failure in the landlord’s process is unclear. However, this added to the delay. On 4 April 2024, the landlord returned to grease the temporary latch that had failed. It is unclear what prompted this. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to order the necessary mechanism and complete the repair, further prolonging the resolution of the security concern.
After the resident complained (29 April 2024), the landlord raised a job to overhaul the windows. It said it attended on 21 June 2024, but it could not gain access to the property. We consider:
1. the landlord failed to provide evidence that it had attended and that it could not gain access on 21 June 2024. Nor that it made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident about this appointment.
2. the resident should not have had to make a complaint for it to arrange to survey the windows.
3. the landlord did not address all the resident’s concerns because it failed to raise any work to also assess the doors. This was a missed opportunity to understand if its repairs in May 2023 had been sufficient.
On 31 August 2024, the landlord said it attended to “make safe smashed/cracked windows”. It is unclear what prompted this. On receipt of such a report, it would be reasonable to attend to make safe within a short timeframe to mitigate any risks. Given the absence of evidence, we cannot say whether the landlord’s response was timely and overall appropriate in the circumstances. S
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had appointed a single point of contact to oversee the survey and subsequent repairs required. While this was reasonable, we have seen that the resident was caused further time and trouble on 12 September when she raised further concerns that the repairs remained outstanding. This inconvenience could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord was actively monitoring the repairs and keeping the resident updated.
This ultimately prompted the landlord to raise another survey on 4 October 2024 for the windows and doors. Although a quote was returned within 4 calendar days, there is no evidence that this was approved. And no further steps were taken until our intervention in April 2025. It then took steps to approve the quote and raise the work with its contractors to replace the windows and doors. This was after missed opportunities to progress the repairs on 6 November 2024 (the resident’s escalation request), and internal correspondence chasing the repairs (14 February 2025). In the absence of a reason for the delay, we could not be satisfied that the quote could not have been approved at an earlier opportunity. This contributed to the delay.

Post complaint procedure

In its stage 2 response (1 May 2025) the landlord said it would contact the resident by 22 May 2025 to arrange an appointment for the work to be completed. We noted that the resident was called on 11 June 2025 and the landlord noted that the windows and back door had been replaced, but the windows were not sealed. Additionally, the front door had not been replaced. The landlord told us it replaced the front door on 22 July 2025. The resident told us the windows remain unsealed.
Overall, it took the landlord 2 years to arrange for a full and effective repair to the windows. Although we recognise that, after a considerable delay, it attempted to mitigate this by completing emergency repairs to the windows in August 2024. Even so, there is outstanding work to seal the windows. Further, we consider that the landlord was aware as early as April 2024 that it needed to investigate the condition of the front and back door. But it took 6 months to survey them and a further 9 months to take action to resolve the issues.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
To put things right, the landlord offered the resident a total of £855 for:
1. inconvenience caused.
2. delays.
3. repeated visits.
4. failure to follow process.
5. time and trouble chasing.
This was broadly in line with an award of compensation we would have ordered, based on the level of failures identified during our investigation. We recognise it also apologised and acknowledged the impact caused by its delays. And that it would reinforce expectations with staff concerning keeping residents informed. It also reasonably offered to assess the resident’s increased costs on receipt of her energy bills. Overall, we consider that it tried to address its delays and poor communications about the progress of the repairs.
However, the landlord told us that part of the delay was due to a change in contractor and outstanding work being slow to pass on to other contractors. Given it identified this issue, we did not see evidence of how it had learnt from this and would prevent the same issues from arising in the future. In light of this, we have made a finding of service failure.
Therefore, it must review this element of the case and explain what measures it will put in place to mitigate any impact of its repair contract change in the future. And contact the resident to arrange an appointment to seal the windows. Furthermore, it should assess whether any additional compensation should be awarded to the resident between May 2025 and the completion of all repairs to the windows and doors. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for this level of finding.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. And issue its response within 10 working days of the date of the acknowledgment. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident made a complaint on 29 April 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 17 May 2024, which was 9 working days later. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 June 2024. This was 14 working days after its acknowledgement. Therefore, the landlord failed to meet its own timescales. It is noted that the landlord responded in line with the target date it had provided in its acknowledgment letter. However, the landlord should reasonably have identified at the time of acknowledging the complaint that it would be departing from its timescales and should have provided an explanation as to why further time was needed. The Code states that extensions should be agreed with residents and the need for further time to respond should be explained. That the landlord did not take such action was inappropriate/unreasonable.
We consider the resident expressed further concerns as set out earlier in this report on 12 September 2024. It is our opinion that at this stage, the landlord ought to have triggered the second stage of its complaint process. We understand the landlord responded and said it had passed her concerns to the service manager. And that it had passed the complaint to the complaints team. But it did nothing further to progress the complaint through its complaints process. This was a missed opportunity to answer the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
This also caused the resident avoidable time and trouble re-requesting an escalation of her complaint on 6 November 2024. There is also no evidence that the landlord took further action to acknowledge and progress the resident’s complaint at this time. This was despite the resident contacting it again in February 2025. It was not until we intervened on 4 April 2025 that it took action to engage with the resident, acknowledge her escalation request, and trigger the second stage of its complaint process. This was a considerable and avoidable delay of 7 months, whereby the landlord ought to have progressed the complaint. That it did not caused significant delay and frustration, resulting in the resident seeking further redress from the Ombudsman.
The landlord recognised that it had delayed in progressing the resident’s escalation request. It apologised and offered £50 in recognition of this. It also demonstrated it learnt from outcomes because it said it intended to review its internal processes for escalations. However, its complaint investigation did not identify that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction in September 2024, only that it had missed an opportunity in November 2024. As such, it missed an opportunity to ensure that when it put things right, this was reflective of its failures and the true length of the delay.
Further the resident raised concerns in her complaint with the condition of the property at the time she took over the tenancy from the former tenant. This is set out earlier in the report. Although the landlord provided us with information concerning the obligations of the parties in this situation, there is no evidence it engaged with the resident about this issue. It ought to have responded via its complaint responses to the resident’s concerns and referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement when doing so. That it did not was a departure from the Code that obligates landlords to address all points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It must put things right by apologising and paying the resident an additional £100 in recognition of its failure to progress her complaint between September and November 2024. And to answer all the elements of her complaint. It must also open a stage 1 complaint to answer her concerns about the condition of the property immediately following her mutual exchange.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and external doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident with an appointment to seal the windows.
4. conduct a review of any internal procedures relating to repair contract changes to identify any opportunities to ensure consistency in conducting its repair obligations. It must write to us and the resident to explain what measures it will put in place to mitigate any impact of its repair contract change in the future. This is to ensure its communications and practices are robust and mitigate any adverse impact on outstanding repairs.
5. contact the resident to open a stage 1 complaint about her concerns relating to the condition of the property immediately after her mutual exchange.
Within 56 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping with the repairs in this case. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.

To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’:

recommendation 2.
recommendation 3.
recommendation 7.
recommendation 8

The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with our orders within the timeframes stipulated above.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord assess whether any additional compensation ought to be awarded to the resident between May 2025 and when it completed all the repairs to the windows and doors.