Southern Housing (202435890)

Decision
Case ID	202435890
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. He raised concerns about damp along the wall of his garage in August 2023. The resident felt that the issue could be due to neighbouring sloping gardens. The resident and his wife both contacted the landlord throughout the duration of the complaint. For ease of reference, we have referred to them as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the garage wall.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the garage wall.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of water ingress through the garage wall

5. We found that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the issue throughout the duration of his complaint. It failed to manage his expectations regarding repair responsibilities and unreasonably delayed in dealing with the matter. However, the landlord acknowledged these failures and put things right for the resident in a manner proportionate to the level of impact.

Complaint handling

6. We found that the landlord delayed unreasonably in providing its stage 1 response and provided responses at stage 1 and 2 that were confusing and difficult to read. The landlord failed to adequately put things right for the resident in recognition of these failures.

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 complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £90.83 it has already offered if this has been paid.	No later than 20 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to provide an update on the status of the NHBC claim if it has not already done so.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £354.17 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of water ingress through the garage wall is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 August 2023	The resident reported damp and mould along the wall of the garage backing on to a neighbour’s garden. He said he thought the fact that the garden was sloping was causing issues and requested that a surveyor attended to inspect.
15 November 2023	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said it was taking too long for the water ingress issue in the garage to be repaired.
6 December 2023	The landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed to extend the stage 1 response deadline due to waiting for a manager to review the response. It apologised and set a further 10 working days for it to respond.
6 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: it had not upheld the complaint a contractor had attended to inspect the garage in July 2024 and found a damp course at the bottom of the garage it had reviewed the lease agreement and found that the garage was the resident’s responsibility to repair as it formed part of “the premises.” it was sorry for the delay in providing its stage 1 response and offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the delay it offered a further £15 compensation for “poor communication.”
18 October 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he did not feel the complaint was resolved at stage 1 and asked to add the following points to the complaint: the stage 1 response was significantly delayed and the compensation offered was not enough he was unclear on why a roofing contractor was sent out to inspect the garage, and the contractor confirmed there was nothing it could do when it attended he did not agree that the issue was his responsibility as it originated from neighbouring gardens. he would like a reduction in rent and a partial refund of his purchase of the property, as he felt the garage issue affected its value.
11 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and said: it recognised that the resident had to chase updates several times following his initial report of the issue, for which it was sorry it was sorry for its complaint handling at stage 1 roofing contractors attended in July 2024 as the landlord had mistakenly raised a works order for a hole in the roof. It was sorry for this. the roofing contractor visit should not have been raised regardless as the issue was for the landlord’s home ownership team the responsibility to repair the garage ultimately was with the resident as per the lease agreement, but there were unreasonable delays in communicating this the resident would need to raise any concerns over service charge amounts through the landlord’s Service Charge Dispute Resolution process it had fed back on the service provided and would use the complaint as a learning point around providing clear repair information it was also investing in its repairs service and identifying training needs for its staff. The landlord offered the resident a total of £445 compensation, broken down as follows: £125 total for 6 service failures £70 for failing to respond within published timescales at stage 1 £250 for inconvenience, and time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate the complaint. He said the issue remained unresolved and he had been unable to use his garage since September 2023. He would like the issue resolved by the landlord.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress through the garage wall
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. Following the resident’s initial report of water ingress in his garage, the landlord responded in a timely manner. It emailed the resident on 30 August 2023, 7 working days after the fact, and confirmed it had opened a case with the relevant team. It established a 10-working day timeframe for a full response. This was reasonable.
8. However, the landlord then failed to update the resident within the agreed timeframe. This inconvenienced the resident, who contacted the landlord again on 22 September 2023 with photos of the water ingress. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 October 2023 and said it had added the photos to the “active case,” and it would update him within 10 working days.
9. The landlord again failed to update the resident within the agreed timescales. This caused time and effort to the resident, who chased updates from the landlord on 17, 18, and 23 October 2023. The landlord responded on 25 October 2023 and said it had chased an update internally. It advised the resident to wait 10 working days for a response. Given that the landlord had already failed to adhere to this timescale twice, this was unreasonable.
10. The resident continued to chase updates from the landlord following his stage 1 complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident until 10 April 2024, 163 working days after it was put on notice of the issue. This was an unreasonable delay that caused significant inconvenience and time and effort to the resident, as well as likely distress.
11. In its email, the landlord said that the property had been out of the defects period since May 2022, and the issue was not noted during the end of defects inspection. As such, the resident would be responsible for acquiring a report from an independent contractor proving that there was a defect. The landlord said it would then provide the report to the NHBC, who the property was still under warranty with. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this, it took too long to do so. Doing so earlier may have allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations and avoid the inconvenience, time, and effort caused.
12. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day with a list of questions about the advice provided. The landlord responded on 17 April 2024 with answers to each of the resident’s questions. This was reasonable and showed the landlord taking steps to improve its communication around the issue.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2024 and said he had attached a report relating to the required work. We have not seen this report, so are unable to confirm its nature. However, the landlord responded on 10 May 2024 and said the document was a quote for works and therefore did not evidence a defect. It reiterated that the resident would need to commission an independent contractor to prove a defect. This was reasonable.
14. On 12 June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that he was responsible for repairs to and maintenance of the property, which includes the garage. The landlord quoted clauses from the “Leaseholder’s Covenants” section of the lease agreement. It reiterated its earlier advice that the resident commission a private report highlighting a defect to take to the NHBC. It was reasonable for the landlord to clearly confirm its position on where the repair responsibility lay, but it is unclear why it did not do this sooner. By this point, it was almost a year since the resident had first reported the issue. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident during this time.
15. The landlord internally requested a damp and mould inspection be raised for the resident’s garage on 9 September 2024. The landlord raised a works order for the inspection on 27 September 2024, which was cancelled on 6 October 2024. This showed a lack of consistency in the landlord’s handling of the issue, and potentially a lack of understanding of the repair responsibility internally. This likely caused further confusion to the resident, which was avoidable.
16. The landlord provided updates to the resident on 7 and 10 October 2024. It said it was pursuing the NHBC for a potential contractual latent defect claim, and that it would update the resident on the progress. It also said it was unable to send a damp and mould surveyor to inspect the garage as the team was currently only inspecting residential properties. It was reasonable for the landlord to pursue the matter with the NHBC and to improve its efforts to communicate with the resident.
17. The resident has informed us that the issue remains unresolved following the landlord’s stage 2 response. It is unclear what the outcome of the NHBC claim was, or whether it is still ongoing. In any case, the resident has confirmed that the water ingress issue is still present but he has now taken some steps to remedy it himself.
18. The landlord’s repairs policy states that terms set out in contracts such as leasehold agreements take precedence over policy. Ultimately, we cannot order the landlord to act outside of its contractual agreement with the resident. The question then is whether the landlord adequately put things right for the resident in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
19. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its communication failures at stage 2. It recognised that it had not provided the correct information around repair responsibilities when it should have. It was reasonable for the landlord to address these failures and take accountability.
20. The landlord offered the resident a total of £445 compensation at stage 2. The landlord identified 6 service failures and offered a total of £125 in recognition of these. It is reasonable to assume that this amount was apportioned evenly at £20.83 each. Therefore, £354.17 was awarded for the substantive issue in total. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s awarded figure is within this range and we consider it to be reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

21. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out requirements for when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code. We are assessing against the 2024 edition of the Code, which is applicable from the point of the landlord’s stage 1 response onwards.
22. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement 5 working days after it received the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
23. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident prior to the stage 1 response deadline once it realised the complaint would need to be extended. The timeframe set out of a further 10 working days which was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy provisions around extensions.
24. However, the landlord then failed to adhere to the extension timescale it had set out. It took a further 212 working days to provide its stage 1 response, which was a significant delay and well outside of the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. The landlord failed to provide any further updates regarding the delay or explain any reasons during this time. The landlord attempted to put things right at stage 1 by apologising and offering £65 compensation. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the delay in its stage 1 response.
25. The landlord has not provided a dated stage 2 acknowledgement. We are therefore unable to determine whether it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in a timely manner. In any case, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on the deadline it set out in its acknowledgement.
26. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were difficult to follow. The stage 1 response was lacking in clarity and confusing in that the landlord said it was not upholding the complaint, then offered compensation. It was also unclear whether the £15 for poor communication related to the substantive issue or to complaint handling.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response was convoluted and at times repetitive. The landlord also specified 2 different total compensation amounts within the same paragraph, first stating £385 then £445. This may have caused confusion to the resident.
28. The landlord again attempted to put things right by offering the resident an increased amount of £70 for the delays at stage 1. Additionally, the landlord identified “unsatisfactory complaint handling” as a service failure. Given the conclusion that the £125 offered for 6 service failures was apportioned evenly, the total amount for “unsatisfactory complaint handling” was £20.83. This makes the total complaint handling figure £90.83.
29. Given the significance of the delay at stage 1 and the additional failures identified, we cannot consider the landlord’s offer of £90.83 to be reasonable redress. The landlord’s awarded figure does not adequately consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £150 in recognition of the identified failures, inclusive of the £90.83 offered at stage 2.

Learning

30. The landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response, which was positive. The landlord set out practical action points. It is recommended that the landlord follows through with these if it has not done so already.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was generally positive and allowed us to complete a full and thorough investigation. The landlord failed to provide a dated stage 2 acknowledgement, but this did not largely impact our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication was poor following the resident’s initial reports of water ingress, and throughout the duration of the complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns on multiple occasions or keep him updated. Better communication would have allowed the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and may have avoided any additional time, trouble, or distress caused to the resident.