Southern Housing (202438782)

Decision
Case ID	202438782
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

The resident complained that the landlord was not effectively responding to her concerns about high costs for her heating and hot water system. She was also dissatisfied with its handling of her request to be rehoused.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for rehousing.
2. Reports of high energy costs for heating and hot water.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high energy costs for heating and hot water.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

The landlord gave appropriate housing options advice but failed to support the resident with her wider affordability concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high energy costs for heating and hot water

The landlord’s apology and compensation offer was proportionate redress for the failings we found in our investigation.

The handling of the associated complaint

There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which it did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for.

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 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 17 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200 made up as follows: £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. £100 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 April 2026
3	Support referral order The landlord must contact the resident to refer her to its own or an external money advice service to support her with her affordability concerns.	No later than 17 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord confirms to the resident who supplies the energy utilised by the heating and hot water system.
Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £360.49 if not already paid, for its identified failings in its handling of her concerns of high energy costs for heating and hot water.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 March 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not responded to her concerns about high heating and hot water energy costs. She said the heating system was unaffordable and that she had previously reported this without receiving a response.
21 May 2024	The resident asked the landlord to include its handling of her rehousing request in the complaint investigation. She said the property was unaffordable and that she was unhappy with its decision to grant the tenancy. Due to this she wanted it to move her to alternative accommodation.
30 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said a fault in the heating and hot water system had caused the resident’s higher meter readings. It apologised for its delay in addressing this. It said it would complete repair work to rectify it. It confirmed the resident met the financial eligibility criteria when it offered her the tenancy. It also gave housing options advice. It offered £360.49 compensation comprising: £125 for inconvenience, time and trouble £60 for its delay in repairing the heating system £175.49 to cover the debt on the resident’s meter caused by incorrect energy charges
27 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. She said it was inadequate given the severity of the issue and its longstanding nature. She said it had failed to handle her rehousing request adequately. She also disputed meeting the affordability criteria when signing her tenancy agreement for the property.
13 December 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had given appropriate housing advice and acted within its policy on the resident’s rehousing request. It confirmed it had identified issues with the heating and hot water system and had found no further service failures. It asked the resident to provide any evidence that challenged its findings and repeated that she met its tenancy eligibility criteria.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. She wanted it to increase its compensation offer and rehouse her.

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 request for rehousing
Finding	Service failure

The resident has asked the landlord to move her to an alternative property since 2023. The local council manages housing allocations in her borough. The landlord presented her circumstances to the council’s housing management panel, but the panel did not award priority rehousing. She has previously complained about its handling of this, but those complaints were not referred to us. This investigation therefore focuses on the issues the resident raised in May 2024 as part of her complaint.
The resident told the landlord on 21 May 2024 that she could not afford her utilities and wanted its support to apply for rehousing. She said she believed she did not meet the income threshold for her current property and felt the landlord should not have granted her a tenancy which she now found unaffordable.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had assessed the resident’s housing need and income before offering the tenancy and confirmed she met its criteria. It added that, because the local council nominated her, the council would also have carried out appropriate eligibility checks. This was proportionate and showed the landlord had considered her concerns.
The evidence shows the landlord gave the resident reasonable housing advice throughout this case. It explained and signposted to the local council’s allocation scheme, provided information on medical and emergency rehousing, and discussed options she could consider in other boroughs. It also offered to present another request to the local council rehousing panel. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s final response reiterated that it had allocated the resident’s current tenancy appropriately. It signposted her to the local council and provided rehousing advice. However, it failed to refer the resident to support agencies despite her concerns about affordability. This omission meant it did not address her wider concerns about being unable to afford the property. It should have acted in line with its vulnerable needs policy and offered support relevant to the resident’s circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to address this and to pay £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high energy costs for heating and hot water
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

The resident told the landlord she believed she had been overcharged for heating and hot water since she moved in March 2022 and asked it to address this in its response. Residents should raise complaints when issues occur, normally within 12 months. As we found no reports detailing concerns of high energy costs made to the landlord before March 2024, we focused our investigation on the 12 months leading up to the March 2024 complaint and the landlord’s related responses.

What we did investigate

The evidence shows that the landlord failed to keep adequate records of its actions in response to the resident’s reports of high energy costs. This has meant that we have not been able to assess if all its responses were proportionate in the circumstances. This indicates a record keeping failure. This investigation, has therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high energy costs. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to carry out repair work) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident’s heating and hot water comes from a communal system with an individual meter in her property to monitor usage. The landlord maintains the system, while the resident contacts a management company about billing queries. She told us she was concerned about the landlord’s lack of transparency over who supplies the buildings energy. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
The resident told the landlord she doubted the accuracy of her meter readings. She said she avoided using the system because of affordability concerns, yet her charges continued to rise despite her limited usage. Given it was aware of her financial difficulties and concern over using the system, the landlord should have assessed what support it could offer or signposted her to relevant agencies as discussed above.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it became aware in 2023 of a system fault affecting the readings sent to the resident’s meter. It apologised for its delay in completing repair work to rectify this and said it had arranged the necessary work. It added that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange attendance. Although this was a proportionate step to take the landlord should have offered a timescale to the resident in which it would complete the work.
The landlord offered £360.49 compensation during its complaint process in relation to the matter. Its breakdown of this apportioned redress for delays, inconvenience, time and trouble. It also included £175.49 which was the amount of debt owed to the utility company that had accumulated on the resident’s meter. Its offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident. This, along with its apology and agreed action was proportionate and in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
Following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1, it contacted the resident on several occasions to advise that it needed to extend its response date. It did not always agree timescales by which it would respond in this correspondence. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 70 working days outside of its published timescale of 10 working days. It did not acknowledge its delay, apologise or offer redress to the resident in its response.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint following her request on 27 August 2024. It subsequently did so almost 2 months later, on 25 October 2024, following her chasing a response. It failed to acknowledge this delay in its stage 2 response.
The landlord told the resident on 29 November 2024 that it needed more time to issue its final response. As this was already 5 working days beyond its policy timescale to respond, it should have agreed an extension sooner. The letter also wrongly stated that it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 1 November 2024, indicating poor record keeping.
The landlord issued its final response 15 working days later than its policy timescale of 20 working days. It failed to acknowledge its delay, apologise or offer redress to the resident. It also did not identify any learning it would implement to avoid a repeat of the delays the resident had experienced throughout its complaint process.
Given the failings we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for it to pay £100 in compensation to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

General learning

The landlord should ensure that it completes appropriate support referrals based on residents’ needs in line with its policy. Doing so in this case could have avoided the failings identified. It may wish to refer to our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

The landlord failed to communicate delays throughout the complaint process with the resident. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns and that it keeps them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.