Southern Housing (202435331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435331

Southern Housing

25 July 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks, and the associated repairs.
2. The complaints process.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house, with an upstairs bathroom above the living room, as well as a second toilet downstairs. The tenancy began in June 2002. The landlord has a record that the resident has mobility problems.
At the time of the events complained about the landlord’s repairs service was operated by a contractor on behalf of the landlord.
On 28 March 2023 the resident reported to the repairs service that there was water dripping from the living room ceiling, but there was no visible leak or damage in the bathroom situated directly above. The resident reported the leak again on 4 April 2023 and 12 April 2023.
On 25 April 2023 the resident reported the leak had caused part of her living room ceiling to fall down, leaving a large hole.
The contractor attended on 26 April 2023 and repaired a leak from the bath. They noted that the toilet leaked when flushed, and listed follow-on repairs needed in the bathroom, including:
1. “Overhauling” the bathroom.
2. Work to the toilet cistern.
3. Fitting a new bath panel.
4. Repairing the living room ceiling.
On 26 April 2023 the resident:
1. Raised a complaint with the landlord about the handling of her report of the leak and the associated repairs.
2. Told the landlord the toilet leak had soaked the bathroom floor, and she had difficulty using the downstairs toilet due to a condition affecting her knees.
In May and June 2023, 2 scheduled appointments to repair the toilet did not go ahead. On 15 June 2023 the contractor repaired the toilet.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It acknowledged that the resident first reported the leak from the living room ceiling on 28 March 2023, but the leak from the bath was not fixed until 26 April 2023, after part of the ceiling had fallen down. The leaking toilet had been noted on 26 April 2023, and an appointment was booked to repair this on 22 May 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation.
On 10 July 2023 the contractor:
1. Replaced the bathroom sink waste pipe, which was blocked.
2. Put sealant on the bath to stop a leak.
3. Fixed the toilet back to the wall.
On 6 November 2023 the resident told the repairs service that when she used the bath or shower, water leaked down the wall into the living room. She also said there was no bath panel, the toilet was broken, and there was still a hole in the living room ceiling.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection on 24 November 2023. They listed the works needed, including:
1. New bath.
2. Tile part of wall near bath to prevent water getting down.
3. New bath panel.
4. Remove toilet, repair subfloor underneath, replace toilet.
5. Re-board and re-plaster living room ceiling.
6. Mould treatment and stain block in kitchen.
The photographs related to the 24 November 2023 inspection suggest the presence of black mould. The contractor’s records for 8 February 2023 refer to a “damp patch appearing near the back door.”
In January and February 2024 the resident told the landlord and contractor that the works to the bathroom and living room ceiling remained outstanding. She said she had been passed back and forth between the landlord and contractor but had not been given an update. She said the delay in carrying out the works was affecting her mental health.
Between February and August 2024 the resident contacted either the landlord or the contractor at least 5 times to chase the works. The records show a no access appointment on 28 June 2024, after which the job was closed.
Records are unclear on the precise date, however, it is beyond dispute that the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure some time between 20 July 2023 and 15 July 2024.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2024. It acknowledged there had been avoidable delays in repairing the leak. There was a delay providing an initial appointment and inspection. The contractor’s initial assessment of the leak as not being an emergency may have contributed to the issue worsening. Had they attended as an emergency it would have reduced the likelihood of the ceiling collapse. The time taken to carry out repairs was extended due to the ceiling collapse and additional time needed for the leak to dry out, and to carry out an asbestos check. Works had remained outstanding for 3 months and 12 days, an unreasonable amount of time, and the resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord.
The landlord apologised for its handling of the substantive issue, and delays in complaint handling. It offered a total of £500 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. Delays/failure to repair – £60.
2. Missed appointments x 2 – £40.
3. Inconvenience, time and trouble – £250.
4. Failure to respond within timescale at stage 2 – £25.
5. Service failures x 6 – £125.
On 30 September 2024 the landlord ended its contract with the repairs contractor, and started its own internal repairs team.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 12 December 2024. The resident also raised a new formal complaint with the landlord on this date, as she said works to the bathroom and the living room ceiling were still outstanding, and the landlord had not paid her the £500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This investigation will focus on the matters raised in the resident’s 26 April 2023 complaint, and the landlord’s response, up until its stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. The resident’s new 12 December 2024 complaint concerned matters which took place after the 10 September 2024 stage 2 response. This has been referred to this Service and is being investigated as a separate case.

Leak and associated repairs

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and the installations for the supply of gas and electricity; water and sanitation; and space heating and heating water. The legislation places a responsibility on landlords to carry out repairs in a reasonable period after being notified.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines two main categories of repairs: emergency repairs and routine repairs. Emergency repairs have a 6 hour target response to make safe. Emergency repairs are defined by the policy as anything causing immediate risk to health, safety and security, or damage to the property’s structure, fixtures, and/or fittings, for example water leaks. The target time for routine repairs is 20 working days. Where it is not possible to meet the target time, the landlord will tell the resident the reasons for the delay.
The policy also says the landlord:
1. Will prioritise responsive repairs that involve health or safety risks.
2. Will prioritise repairs which have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition.
3. Has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It will act promptly to maintain a safe living environment. If this cannot be done immediately, it will reduce the risks using methods such as dehumidifiers or mould wash.
4. For routine repairs it will agree the appointment at the time the repair is reported, and confirm the time and date using the resident’s preferred communication style.
5. Aims to complete all repairs in one visit. Where this isn’t possible it will clearly communicate why it is unable to complete the repair at the first visit, what it intends to do, and what will happen next.
At the time of the events complained about the landlord worked with contractors to deliver its repairs service. For clarity, this report refers to the landlord’s contractors as contractors. It should however be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.
As acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response, the resident’s 28 March 2023 report of a leak from the living room ceiling was not appropriately categorised as an emergency. The landlord has acknowledged that this contributed to ceiling collapse.
The records do not evidence that the contractor booked an appointment with the resident at the time she reported the leak. It is evident that the resident had to chase the contractor to attend. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 4 April 2023 the resident told the contractor she wanted the leak dealt with as an emergency. The contractor cancelled the routine repair job, but did not raise new emergency repair job. This was poor practice, and would have contributed to the resident’s frustration, and perception that the contractor and landlord did not care.
The contractor tried to phone the resident on 12 April 2023, but there was no answer, and it closed the repair job again. Given the potential risk to the resident should the ceiling collapse, this was again very poor.
The resident contacted the contractor again on 25 April 2023 once the ceiling had collapsed. It was appropriate that the contractor raised an emergency repair job. However, the records show the job was raised at 16.41 on 25 April 2023, but an operative did not attend to repair the leak from the bath until 26 April 2023. This was therefore not within the target 6 hour target response time.
Overall, the contractor (on behalf of the landlord) failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s 28 March 2023 report of a leak from the living room ceiling, and this placed the resident at risk of harm, particularly as a result of her known mobility difficulty, from the ceiling collapse. There is no indication that the policy requirement to prioritise repairs involving health or safety risks was considered. The resident experienced frustration and expended unnecessary time and trouble chasing the contractor. The subsequent collapse of the ceiling cannot but have been distressing for her.
The contractor noted the leak from the toilet on 25 April 2023, but there is no evidence an appointment to repair this was booked on the day. The resident told the landlord about the toilet leak on 26 April 2023. On the same day the landlord asked the contractor to book the repair “ASAP” as the resident had reported she had difficulty using the stairs. It was appropriate that the landlord asked that the repair be prioritised, due to the resident’s mobility difficulty. The records are unclear when the repair appointment was booked, but it appears this was not done until early May 2023, after the resident made contact the chase the repair.
The toilet repair was initially booked for 22 May 2023 but this was cancelled on the day, as the operative was unable to attend. There is no evidence that the resident was informed the appointment would not go ahead, nor that the appointment was immediately re-booked. This was poor practice and not in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
The records show there was a “no access” appointment on 6 June 2023. While the resident was obliged to allow access, on notice, there is no evidence she was notified in advance of the appointment date and time.
The toilet was repaired on 15 June 2023, 34 working days after it was first reported. This was outside of the policy timescale for a routine repair. This was especially poor in light of the resident having informed the landlord she had difficulty using the other toilet due to her mobility problems.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s 20 June 2023 stage 1 response acknowledged:
1. There had been a delay in responding to original report of leak, and in repairing the toilet.
2. There were failures in relation to closing the job on 4 and 12 April 2023.
However, the response did not outline a plan for the follow-on works to bathroom and living room ceiling, as identified on 26 April 2023.
The contractor replaced the bathroom sink waste pipe, put sealant on the bath to stop a leak, and fixed the toilet back to the wall, on 10 July 2023. However, works to fix all leaks from the bathroom, rectify water damage the bathroom, and the living room ceiling were still not completed by 10 September 2024 (around 17 months after the ceiling collapsed), when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
It was unavoidable that time was needed for the ceiling to dry out before it could be repaired. However, there was additional unnecessary delay as a result of the landlord’s poor management of the repair.
The records for 23 May 2023 show a note that, “Lounge ceiling is artexed, office to find out if it has been tested for asbestos, if not, asbestos test to be done.” On 4 July 2023 the resident told the landlord the contractor had told her an asbestos survey was needed, and the landlord asked its asbestos team to arrange an inspection as soon as possible.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), asbestos is not dangerous for occupants if it is in good condition and not disturbed. In this case, asbestos may be left in place, monitored, and managed to ensure it is not disturbed. Disturbing asbestos could release asbestos fibres into the air, which would likely be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it. ‘The Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance for Landlords and Property Related Professionals,’ states asbestos that is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed can be managed and monitored in situ, with a record kept of the location of asbestos in the building.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have already had an up-to-date record of whether or not there was asbestos in the living room ceiling. On the basis that on 4 July 2023 it asked its asbestos team to carry out a survey, it is assumed that no such record existed, or the landlord could access it. This would indicate either a failure in asbestos management practices, or a failure in knowledge and information management.
The records are unclear exactly when the asbestos survey was carried out, following the 4 July 2023 request. The landlord sent the survey report to the resident and the contractor on 24 August 2023, and instructed the contractor to go ahead with the ceiling repairs as no asbestos was present. This apparent delay of over a year before the asbestos survey was carried out was extremely poor practice. Had asbestos been present in the artex on the collapsed ceiling, the resident would have been exposed to this since April 2023, placing her at risk of damage to her health. Although the survey ultimately found no asbestos present, the slowness in carrying out the asbestos survey caused a lengthy delay in the ceiling being repaired.
Another cause of delay in the process was the landlord cancelling an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the bathroom in error. The appointment was cancelled on 1 March 2024, but the landlord’s internal correspondence for 11 April 2024 shows it saying an inspection was needed before the contractor could carry out repairs in the bathroom, to ensure the cause of ongoing water leakage into the living room and kitchen was properly diagnosed. This was another example of poor management of the repairs process. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to mitigate the risks of damp and mould, such as providing dehumidifiers or mould wash. Given the delay in fully diagnosing and remedying the leak, this was unreasonable, and in breach of its responsive repairs policy.
There is no evidence that the landlord or the contractor explained to the resident why the repair was delayed, explained the plan for getting the works done, or kept her updated on what was happening. This was poor practice and not in line with the responsive repairs policy.
It was appropriate that the stage 2 response on 10 September 2024 accepted there had been multiple failings, and apologised for these. However, it did not outline a plan for the outstanding works. Additionally, the compensation offer was insufficient in light of the extent of the scale of the failings involved and the significant impacts on the resident.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, and the associated repairs overall, this was poorly managed and characterised by an apparent lack of oversight, inadequate levels of cohesion, and long delays. The failings identified include:
1. The initial report of a leak from the living room ceiling was not appropriately categorised as an emergency. This contributed to the ceiling collapse.
2. Repair appointments were not booked at the time the issue was reported, and the resident had to chase the landlord and contractor to act.
3. No indication that the policy requirement to prioritise repairs that involve health or safety risks was considered.
4. The repair of the leak, toilet, and remedial works to the bathroom and living room ceiling were not completed within policy timescales. The repairs were not completed by the time of the stage 2 response, 18 months after the leak was first reported.
5. Poor asbestos management practices, including a delay of over a year before the asbestos survey was carried out, during which time the resident could have been exposed to asbestos fibres.
6. No evidence the landlord took steps to mitigate the risks of damp and mould.
7. Poor knowledge and information management, contributing to poor management of the repair process.
As a result of the landlord’s failings the resident experienced inconvenience and distress, expended time and trouble contacting the landlord and contractor, and had reduced enjoyment of her home over an extended period. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise, pay compensation of £800 and carry out a case review. The compensation amount recognises not only the resident’s inconvenience and distress, but the fact that the landlord allowed her to be exposed to risk of harm (as a result of the ceiling collapse), and potential risk of harm (had the ceiling contained asbestos).

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days, and respond in full within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If it needed more than 10 working days to respond, it would explain why and inform the complainant of the expected timescale for its response.
The policy said the landlord would acknowledge requests to escalate stage 2 within 5 working days, and respond in full within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If it needed more than 20 working days to respond, it would explain why and inform the complainant of the expected timescale for its response. The landlord’s policy timescales were in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident initially complained on 26 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 4 May 2023, 5 working days later, as per its policy. However, the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 20 June 2023, 31 working days after acknowledgement. While the landlord wrote to the resident on 5 June 2023 to explain it needed more time to respond because it was waiting for information from the contractor, this was already 20 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide an expected date for its response. The landlord therefore did not stick to the timescales required by its policy and the Code at stage 1.
It was appropriate that the stage 1 response acknowledged the landlord’s failings. However, the landlord could have gone further to demonstrate it understood the impact of its failings on the resident, especially in light of her additional needs. The wording of its apology, “I am sorry that you had cause to complain,” also left it open to the perception that the apology was not sincere. Furthermore, while the response said the landlord was committed to learning from complaints, it did not explain what it had learned from the complaint or what it would do differently going forward. Nor did it did not outline a timed plan for ensuring that the repairs were completed in a timely overseen manner.
The records are unclear on when the resident first requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 .The landlord has provided us with an email it sent the resident dated 15 July 2024, in which it acknowledged her request to escalate, and her statement that she had previously asked for the complaint to be escalated but had heard nothing back. As we have no evidence of when the resident first requested escalation, it is not possible to conclude the landlord did not acknowledge this in time.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 September 2024, 41 working days after it acknowledged her request to escalate. This was outside of the timescale required by it policy and the Code. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 August 2024, 20 working days after it acknowledged the request to escalate, extending the date for its stage 2 response to 10 September 2024 as it was waiting for additional information.
It was appropriate that the stage 2 response acknowledged the landlord’s failings, sincerely apologised, and acknowledged the impact on the resident in terms of inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord also explained it had learned that “there are areas we can improve our customer service as well as our record management.” However, it still did not outline a plan for ensuring that the outstanding repairs were completed in a timely manner.
An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and rebuild good relationships with residents. However, in this case the landlord missed an opportunity to do so. There is no evidence that the complaints investigation led to any improvements in the handling of the matter complained about. This, along with the delays in the complaint handling, cannot but have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s management of the complaint process. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay compensation of £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £950, broken down as follows:
  1. £800 for its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, and the associated repairs.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman completed a special investigation of the landlord in May 2024, using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The Housing Ombudsman Special Report on Southern Housing requested the landlord provide an action plan to address the report’s recommendations. Several of the issues that have surfaced in this case mirror the issues featured in the Special Report, although others do not.
The landlord must now instruct and complete a strategic case review into the causes of failures in this case, to identify learning and service improvement points. The review should incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report, and the Special Report. It must incorporate any learning from this case into already developed improvement plans prepared in response to the special investigation. For any issues not featured in the Special Report, or which are not included in current actions plans, it must identify opportunities for improvement and indicate its planned timeframe for implementation.
Specific attention should be given to ensuring the inclusion of the following factors:
1. Ensuring effective oversight and monitoring frameworks are in place to deliver an acceptable level of compliance with its responsive repairs policy, including:
  1. How repairs are captured, diagnosed and correctly categorised.
  2. That appointments are booked at the time of report whenever possible.
  3. That follow on works required are subject to adequate oversight through to effective completion.
  4. That repairs involving health and safety risks are appropriately and consistently prioritised.
2. Ensuring an adequate degree of confidence in the completeness of its asbestos register, the sharing of that information with contractors, and the efficacy of its practices in response to potential exposure.
3. Ensuring the oversight framework of its record keeping practices is sufficiently effective so as to ensure compliance with its responsive repairs policy.
4. The consistency of its actions to mitigate the development and impacts of damp and mould, e.g. through the provision of dehumidifiers.
5. Ensuring its complaint investigations take a lead role, affecting enduring resolutions to the matter complained about.
The landlord must share a written report of the strategic case review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.