Southern Housing (202441630)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202441630

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Southern Housing

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

30 January 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property with his partner and their 2 young children. The property is a 1930s cottage and has 4 bedrooms. The resident reported cracks in the plasterwork and adjoining walls in March 2024. The landlord inspected the cracks and deemed them to be decorative and the building to be structurally sound. The resident complained in September 2024 and completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in January 2025 and brought his complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the cracks in plasterwork within the property.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found Service Failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the cracks in plasterwork within the property.
  2. We have found Service Failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the cracks in plasterwork within the property

  1. Following the reports of cracks found in the property, the landlord took the appropriate actions in order to ensure the property was safe and to complete any identified repairs. The cause of the cracks was attributed to movement, which the landlord was satisfied had stopped in July 2024. The cracks were deemed decorative and part of the tenant’s responsibilities to repair. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered to repair the cracks and offered a decorating pack for the resident to complete the decorative works. The landlord identified failings that resulted in impact to the resident and his family and offered £265 compensatory redress for these failings. The landlord did not however identify any learning from its acknowledged failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord issued both of its complaint responses outside of published timescales. It is positive to see the landlord use strategies, such as escalation request, to reduce the resident’s dissatisfaction. It also identified failings, apologised and offered compensatory redress to put things right. However, the landlord failed to set out its learning from the circumstances in this case. Landlords are expected to prioritise a culture of learning from complaints, in line with the Code. As a result, we cannot find reasonable redress and find Service failure in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

 

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

02 March 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the £365 it previously awarded directly to the resident, if it has not done so already.

The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation it has done so.

No later than

02 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should endeavour to reengage with the resident in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution to any residual issues of dispute related to the reported cracks.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

Events before

30 September 2024

In March 2023, the resident reported finding cracks to the plasterworks and gaps in adjoining walls.

In order to establish the root cause of the cracks and to ensure the building was safe, the landlord arranged an expert to inspect the property and report on whether subsidence was present.

In July, the expert told the landlord that there was no subsidence, but movement was the like cause of the cracks. The expert was satisfied that movement had stopped and it was safe to repair and redecorate.

The landlord told the resident the cracks were decorative in nature and so repair responsibility would therefore typically fall to the resident. However, as a good will gesture, it would repair the cracks and provide a decorating voucher for the resident to redecorate the affected areas.

30 September 2024

The resident submitted their initial complaint to the landlord, and it said:

  • They remain “unhappy and unsatisfied” with the response to their complaint about the condition of the internal and external walls.
  • The landlord has “failed to respond” to their recent emails.
  • There are “huge cracks and holes in the whole hallway, stairs and 2 of the bedrooms and 2 cupboards.”
  • The house is too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer, due to the air coming in from the cracks, and there are now “multiple” issues with the property.
  • There is also a “wallpaper issue from the repairs”.
  • The Complex Works team “agreed to repair all internal cracks and holes and fix the wallpaper issue with 15 days of work.”
  • The landlord gave the case back to the Reactive repairs team. This team told the resident it could provide 1 day of “filling in the cracks”.
  • The landlord offered the resident a “paint voucher” to cover the costs of redecoration.
  • “This is completely unacceptable” as “the landlord told the residents to remove the wallpaper” to establish where all the cracks were.
  • They have also discovered “woodworm” in the bathroom’s skirting boards and one “fell off” with a “stag beetle” in it.
  • They would like the landlord to progress this through to “stage 2.”

10 October 2024

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and it captured his

complaint as:

  • The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to their complaint regarding the condition of the walls and internal issues.
  • Members of staff have also failed to respond to the resident’s latest emails.
  • There are “multiple issues” within the property.
  • There are “huge cracks and holes in the whole hallway, stairs, 2 of the bedrooms and 2 cupboards. You can fit 2 fingers in some of the holes.”
  • The Complex Works team had “agreed to repair all internal cracks, holes and wallpaper issues” and would take “15 days” to complete.
  • The work agreed with the Complex Works team was “incorrectly passed back” to the Reactive repairs team.
  • The resident was not happy with the offer of the paint voucher.

It apologised to the resident for the issues they had raised, and then said:

  • It understood he would like to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process, but they had not sent a stage 1 complaint response, so it would do that first.
  • It would not address the issues regarding the woodworm and the bathroom’s skirting boards as the resident would need to raise them as “service requests” first.
  • On 1 November 2024 there is an appointment booked to rectify the cracks.
  • It will discuss his concerns with the teams involved and will also establish what works remain outstanding.

7 November 2024

The landlord requested an extension of time to issue its stage 1 response. It said:

  • They recognise that the resident was expecting a response by “today” but requested an extension and aimed to provide the response by 15 November 2024.
  • The Contracts Manager explained Property Services they will be “revoking their offer to fill the cracks in your property” after the resident ejected contractors from the property on 1 November 2024.
  • The Complaints team was waiting for a response from the Complex Works team, to confirm if they will agree to the works originally “quoted by the contractor.”

9 November 2024

The resident replied to the landlord’s extension request, which said:

  • The contractor who attended on the 1 November told the resident that “the rest of the wallpaper needed to come off and mesh and bonding was required, before replastering.”
  • The contractor then said that the landlord had told him to “fill the cracks with sealant and only up the start of wallpaper” and he added that it would be a “proper bodge job and would leave a very bad finish” and “not the proper way to do things.”
  • “This is the 4th or 5th person from Reactive Repairs” to say, “exactly the same thing.”
  • The resident told the contractor he was going through the landlord’s complaints process and that the contractor said, “it was best to do that, to get the works done properly.”

15 November 2024

The landlord emailed the resident to request an additional 3-day extension. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response and the resident will receive it by “close of play Monday 18 November.”

19 November 2024

The landlord issued its stage 1 response, and it said:

  • Following a review of the communication logs, it could see that staff responded to emails on “28 September 2024” and “3 October 2024”.
  • The Complex Works team deals with insurance enquiries, and the landlord escalated the case to this team for them to investigate the claims of subsidence.
  • The Insurance Assessor confirmed that the cracks were not a result of subsidence and that the cracks were “decorative.” It added, “decorative cracks fall under the tenants’ responsibilities as stated in the tenancy handbook.”
  • It had not booked “15 days of decorating” but after a review of the repair history, it did find a 15-day “dwelling management survey”, which “may have been the reason” for the resident’s confusion. “This repair was for an asbestos survey.”
  • As an “act of goodwill”, the Contracts Manager “authorised the repair contractor to fill the decorating cracks on the residents behalf and offered a decorating pack for the resident to paint the walls.”
  • It was aware the resident had “raised concerns” with various members of different teams but it would not change this position.
  • On the 7 June 2024 a Senior Consultant Engineer recommended a schedule of works for the landlord to undertake. It understands that the resident believed the Complex Works team would be responsible for the works “even if they did not find subsidence.”
  • But the report said the “repairs and remediation currently required all are minor works and standard maintenance works requirements” so the Complex Works team are unable to carry out the proposed repairs.
  • “The report also explains the repairs and remediation items being suggested would be the type of works expected of a tenant under their normal decorating responsibilities.”
  • The Property Services Team “did not find any evidence of the landlord or any contractor informing the resident to remove wallpaper” in the property.
  • The Contracts Manager has now “revoked the offer to fill the cracks” because the resident had “ejected contractors from the property on more than one occasion.”
  • The resident explained that the reason for this was because “operatives informed him that “the recommended works would be a bodge job, and additional repairs are needed.” It has been unable verify this because contractors had not reported any further works.
  • It understands that this is “not the outcome” the resident was hoping for but can see there had been “some misunderstanding” regarding the scope of the works. The report in June may have contributed to this confusion, as it “may have raised the residents expectations, which has led the resident to challenge the proposed works offered by Property Services.”
  • It apologised for the “miscommunication” regarding the scope of works. It offered £250 for inconvenience, time and trouble and £15 for the delays in issuing its complaint responses.

26 November 2024

The landlord sent its escalation acknowledgement but has not provided

us with a copy of this email.

24 December 2024

The landlord emailed the resident to request an extension to “9

January”, due to the case handler’s unexpected leave.

15 January 2025

The landlord issued its stage 2 response, and it said:

  • It understood the resident is unhappy that the Complex Works team are not undertaking the repairs to the cracks and you have requested a review. It also understands that the resident does not believe that the cracks are “hairline.”
  • It has been unable to verify any statement indicating that the landlord instructed the resident to remove the wallpaper.
  • It had requested the resident to send “evidence” to support this claim but had not received any.
  • In the absence of the evidence from either party “regarding this instruction”, it must refer to its Repairs Policy which states “cosmetic items, such as wallpaper and decoration, are the resident’s responsibility.”
  • The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for repairs to minor cracking in the plastering.
  • The landlord initially suspected the cracks could be the result of subsidence, hence the referral to the Complex Works team. The landlord followed the “correct procedure”. A qualified insurance inspector attended to review the situation and document their findings.
  • The report stated, “whilst some cracks, gaps, and plaster loss were noted and observed, it is felt that most were well within the scope of what would be expected as normal resident decoration requirements in terms of basic preparation tasks.”
  • It understands that this was not the outcome the resident may have hoped for, especially given the “duration of this process.” But as the inspector did not find subsidence, the landlord “correctly referred the case back to Reactive Repairs.”
  • It had gone beyond its “usual responsibilities by agreeing to carry out repairs to the cracks and offering a goodwill gesture of decorating vouchers” and the offer “remains open should you wish to accept it.”
  • The resident suggested that they would arrange to complete the works and “invoice” the landlord for them to reimburse the expense. But it is unable to accept this, given that decorative works fall under the “tenants responsibility.”
  • It would reconsider its position if the resident obtained “further evidence”.
  • It increased its offer of compensatory redress from £265 to £365, to include £100 delays in complaint handling.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident brought their complaint to this Service, and said:

  • They “complained” to the landlord in September 2023, regarding the “large” cracks in the plasterwork, but the landlord said the cracks were “hairline” and were the tenant’s responsibility to repair and redecorate.
  • They believe the cracks need “special repair by way of bonding mesh and plaster.”
  • The repairs team did not investigate “until April 2024”. The landlord then said the job was “too big” for Reactive repairs. So, the landlord escalated the repairs to the Complex Works team to investigate suspected subsidence.
  • The Complex Works team “promised” to deal with the repairs.
  • The report confirmed there was no subsidence.
  • The Reactive repairs team intended to fill the cracks with “decoration caulk”, but the resident did not agree with this method.
  • Within the complaint responses, the landlord offered £365 for miscommunication failings and delays.
  • In order to complete the repairs properly “it would require bonding and plaster.”
  • They live in the property with their two very young daughters and the internal temperatures during the summer months and winter months are impacting them.

 

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 repairs to the cracks in plasterwork within the property.

Finding

Service failure
  1. Within the communication logs seen by this Service, the resident told us he reported the cracks in “September 2023” but told us the landlord did not investigate his reports until “April 2024”. Following a review of the repairs logs, we can see that the first record of reported cracking plasterworks was on 9 March 2024 as “cracks throughout bedroom 4 walls”, this followed a “full dwelling management survey” in March 2024 and a repair was logged 9 April 2024 as “as per inspection, repair wall fracture.” With the evidence seen, this Service considers that the first report of cracked plaster was in March 2024.
  2. Following the report in March 2024, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord appropriately arranged inspections and specialist assessments. The records seen show that the landlord carried out the necessary checks to satisfy that the building was structurally safe. Following the survey in July 2024, the landlord confirmed that there was no subsidence and any “movement” had stopped. This meant that it would be safe to complete repairs to the existing cracks and redecorate the affected areas.
  3. The resident also told the landlord that contractors had expressed concern about the repairs they were to complete. When there are concerns regarding the scope of works or type of repairs required, this Service would expect the contractor to raise their concerns with the landlord. They would then be able to discuss alternative ways to provide a lasting resolution or repair that both parties agreeable to.
  4. From the evidence assessed, we cannot see any evidence that suggests contractors raised their concerns about the “decorative caulk” or suggested “mesh bonding and replastering” as a way to repair the cracks.
  5. It is however, beyond dispute that miscommunication between the landlord, its contractors, and the resident led to elevated expectations about the scope of works that the landlord proposed to undertake. Confusion stemmed from a lack of clarity on which team would be progressing the works and who would ultimately be responsible for the repairs and redecoration. For this failing, the landlord offered the resident £265 in compensatory redress.
  6. While we do not consider the resident’s decision reasonable in the circumstances, it was understandable given the breakdown in trust and the resident’s expressed concern about workmanship. We note that the landlord could have taken additional steps to reassure the resident about the standard of works, before withdrawing the offer.
  7. This Service has seen photographic evidence of these cracks, and we can confirm that they do vary in width. The resident has told this Service that they have repaired the cracks in the property at their own cost, and the landlord has confirmed that no further cracks have been reported.
  8. The evidence seen shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to progress the works and offered redress for the identified service failings. The landlord’s offer of £265 for time and trouble, together with its earlier offer to complete remedial works outside of the obligations and provide a redecoration pack, represented proportionate redress for the impacts of its acknowledged failings.
  9. However, the landlord failed to set out its learning from its failures in this case. Landlords are expected to prioritise a culture of learning from complaints, in line with the Code. As a result, on the absence of any indicated commitment to learning for the communications failings we cannot find reasonable redress and find Service failure in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord took 34 days to issue its stage 1 and 33 days to issue its stage 2 complaint responses. We can see that the landlord contacted the resident and made extension requests, to mitigate uncertainty and frustration. However, the responses were not issued within the extension period.
  2. The resident sought additional compensation to put things right, but this Service considers that compensation should be assessed against the adverse impacts of the failings identified rather than the compensation level desired. In this case, the amounts offered broadly align with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  3. The landlord increasing its compensation offer in respect of complaint delays to £100. Whilst this was positive the landlord missed an opportunity to provide adequate detail or explanation in respect of the additional delays.
  4. The landlord also did not clearly commit to learning from the complaint delay issues it acknowledged. In particular it did not set out how it would consider the case so as to prevent similar delays in the future. We therefore find Service Failure.

Learning

  1. It is important to evidence a positive culture to learning and to use the complaints process to identify areas of improvement in communications.
  2. Within this case, the landlord identified areas of learning but did not set out or commit to ways to prevent such failings happening in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. Overall, the landlord demonstrated good record keeping in this case.

Communication

  1. This case featured communications with the resident that lacked an adequate level of empathy.