Southern Housing (202433447)

Background

1. The leaseholder complained to the landlord about the way it handled repairs to a broken communal gate and lock, which he had first reported in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal gate and lock.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

5. The landlord did not fully explain the reasons for the significant delay in completing the repair or why it did not treat the issue with more urgency. Its compensation offer did not reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble the leaseholder experienced when trying to progress the repair.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed logging and handling the leaseholder’s complaint. Its actions did not align with its complaint procedure or the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code. It did not explain the reason for the delay or identify how it would prevent similar delays in future.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. In his correspondence with the landlord and us, the leaseholder has referred to other tenants being similarly affected by the issues of his complaint. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme deals with complaints from individual tenants and leaseholders. Therefore, this investigation will address the matters raised in his complaint to the landlord which have affected the leaseholder personally.
8. Nonetheless, there are circumstances in which a group complaint can be made. Further information about group complaints can be found on our website if required by the leaseholder for any future complaints.

What we have investigated

9. The leaseholder’s complaints in August and September 2025 focused on the landlord’s handling of his reports about the communal gate lock. He explained he had first reported the issue in December 2023 and said the lock remained faulty after the initial repair. He described ongoing security concerns, including unknown individuals accessing the unlocked gate and attempting to enter the flats. He said the lack of progress caused him stress and anxiety, and that he had spent significant time trying to resolve the issue. He wanted the landlord to complete an effective repair.
10. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repair and said this was due to contractor quotes not being approved. It said it had completed some repairs and escalated the matter internally when the leaseholder reported these had not resolved the issue. In its final response in September 2024, it said its maintenance team would raise a further job for an operative to correct the previous workmanship and replace the lock. It offered the leaseholder £150 as a goodwill gesture for the delay and explained that its compensation framework does not cover payments for communal repairs. The landlord also identified learning points about its communication with leaseholders and the need to test and inspect completed repairs to ensure they met a reasonable standard.
11. The evidence shows the landlord took various steps to investigate and repair the gate before and during the complaint process, but these actions were intermittent and did not resolve the issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays and explain the steps it intended to take. The records also show that after issuing its final response, the landlord took further action to improve security in the area and continued to contact contractors to address the ongoing faults.
12. However, there were several issues that the landlord did not address in its complaint response. These included:
    1. It said the delay in completing the repair was due to the original quote not being approved, but it did not explain how this occurred or what steps it took to prevent a recurrence. We have not seen evidence of what action the landlord took between the first report in December 2023 and the leaseholder’s later complaints.
    2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classifies insecure communal door access as an emergency repair. The policy says emergency repairs should be attended within 6 hours, although more than 1 visit may be needed to complete the work. We have not seen evidence that the landlord treated the faulty lock as an emergency repair, or that it assessed the report against its emergency repair criteria at the time. The records show the first time a contractor attended the repair was 4 January 2024, 4 days after the issue was reported.
13. The leaseholder told us that the lock was repaired after the complaint process. The landlord’s records show further repairs in February 2025 and an inspection of the replacement keycode system in March 2025, which confirmed the issue had been resolved. Although this outcome is positive, the landlord took almost 14 months to complete the repair. This meant the communal entrance remained insecure for an extended period, increasing the impact on the leaseholder. The evidence also supports that the leaseholder had to spend considerable time contacting the landlord to describe the repeated failures each time the issue reoccurred due to not having been fixed correctly by the contractor.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not award compensation for communal repairs but may consider a discretionary payment to recognise the impact on the leaseholder and the time and trouble involved in pursuing the matter.
15. While the landlord made some attempts to put things right, including apologising and identifying areas of learning, the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the length of the delay. It also did not reflect the significant time and trouble the leaseholder spent reporting the issue over several months, nor the inconvenience caused by the prolonged insecurity of the gate. The complaint responses did not fully explain the reasons for the delays or the steps the landlord had taken to prevent similar issues from occurring again.

16. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says a leaseholder should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement, unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint 2 days later than its policy allows and issued the stage 1 response 1 day after its target. It acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint within its published timescales.
18. The landlord should have acknowledged the delays in the stage 1 acknowledgement and response. However, the delays were short and there is no evidence they had a clear impact on the leaseholder.
19. However, there is evidence the leaseholder attempted to raise the complaint earlier than the landlord recognised. He first expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the repair in February 2024, around 6 months before the landlord logged the complaint.
20. The landlord did not acknowledge this earlier expression of dissatisfaction or explain why the complaint was not identified and managed at that time. There is evidence that the leaseholder had to raise the complaint again following a lack of response and action by the landlord. This approach did not align with the expectations set out in its complaint procedure or the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord said some records of its early actions to address the repair were unavailable due to a change in contractors. Good record keeping is essential for effective complaint handling and for demonstrating the steps taken to resolve issues. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for guidance on how accurate and complete records support a high‑quality service to leaseholders.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the leaseholder throughout the repair was poor. It has identified learning opportunities to improve how it communicates during repair work. As it develops its service, the landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights for guidance on how to communicate effectively with leaseholders in future.