Southern Housing (202443688)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202443688 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southern Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
8 May 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a block of flats. She reported a recurrence of a leak in a communal area outside her front door in February 2022. The resident was unhappy with the time it took the landlord to investigate the cause of the leak and with how it communicated about it.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- A leak in a communal area.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak in a communal area.
- We found reasonable redress in the handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Communal leak
- Through the complaints process the landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of the leak repair. It also took some appropriate steps to put things right, including completing further investigations and repairs. However, there was a further delay in carrying out one of the agreed actions and it did keep the resident updated.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not meet its complaints policy timescales and failed to keep the resident informed of the delays at stage 1. However, it took actions to remedy the impact on the resident, including awarding a reasonable amount of compensation.
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:
|
No later than 08 June 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay £200 compensation directly to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in communication about the communal repair. It must provide us with evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made for this aspect. |
No later than 08 June 2026 |
|
3 |
Update order The landlord must confirm the current position on the warranty claim to the resident in writing. It must also provide likely timescales for any next actions it proposes to take to progress the matter (such as legal action), if appropriate. It must also confirm how frequently it will update her. The landlord must send us a copy of its communication. |
No later than 08 June 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it awarded for its complaint handling failures. Because it was partly on this basis that we made a finding of reasonable redress. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
24 October 2023 |
The resident complained, via her son and representative (hereon both referred to as ‘the resident’), that she had escalated a complaint in August 2022 about the leak but it was still unresolved. She said it had also caused algae to grow on an outside wall nearby. |
|
5 December 2023 |
The landlord responded at stage 1. It said:
|
|
12 March 2024 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint because the leak was still occurring. She asked to be compensated for having to deal with the leak for several years. |
|
15 May 2024 |
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said:
|
|
After the complaints process ended. |
The landlord cleaned the wall in May 2024 and inspected the gutters in July 2024. It then decided further investigations and specialist input was needed, including CCTV of drains. It subsequently concluded the leak was caused by a defect with the roof. The landlord advised the resident in mid-2025 that it was pursuing a claim under the building warranty provider. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy that the landlord did not resolve the leak. She advised us that it has since damaged her front door. The resident told us she wants the leak and front door to be repaired, and to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused. |
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 |
Leak in a communal area |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we have not looked at
- The resident told us the leak began around 2020. The records we received start with the resident’s report on 2 February 2022. We cannot confirm from the available evidence if the landlord knew about the issue earlier. In any event, we expect residents to make complaints in a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of becoming aware of a problem. This is so that evidence remains available and the landlord can act more effectively to put things right. Given the available evidence, and the gap of 14 months between the resident’s first (in August 2022) and second complaint (in October 2023), this investigation focuses on events from 2 February 2022.
- In September 2024, the resident reported water damage to her front door and frame caused by the leak. She later told us in May 2026 that the landlord had delayed the repair until it permanently fixed the leak. Our scheme does not allow us to investigate issues the landlord has not first had the chance to resolve through its complaints process. The resident has not shown that she raised further complaints about the door damage or later events after the complaints process ended in May 2023. We have therefore not investigated the front door repair. However, we considered the time the landlord took to complete the actions it agreed at stage 2 and the fact that the repair remains outstanding. If the resident remains dissatisfied with more recent issues, such as the front door repair, she must raise a new complaint with the landlord first.
What we have looked at
- The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its obligation to maintain and repair the resident’s building, including communal areas such as roofs and walls. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days where there is no immediate risk. Where this timescale is not possible or it is unable to complete a repair at the first appointment, the policy states it will let the resident know and will confirm what will happen next.
- The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments for delayed repairs up to a maximum of £50. However, it excludes communal repairs, though it states a payment may be made on a discretionary basis. Such as in cases where a resident has made efforts to pursue the landlord to complete a communal repair.
- Leaks can sometimes be challenging to fix and may involve a process of elimination. When the cause of a problem is unclear, the landlord may not meet its repair timescales, but it should investigate promptly and complete any identified repairs within its published timescales. Unless there is a good reason it is unable to, such as the availability of a specialist contractor or complexity of the work. Where a communal repair is concerned, it would be reasonable for a landlord to keep the resident who reported the problem updated.
- We find the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was largely fair and reasonable. It acknowledged its mistakes and took appropriate steps to put things right, such as:
- Apologising for the delays caused by its failure to act on its surveyor’s recommendations to carry out further investigations (in February 2022) and the resident’s complaint (from August 2022).
- Awarding compensation of £140, within the range (£50-£150) its compensation policy and our compensation guidance recommend for modest impacts. It was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the intermittent leak, given the proximity to her front door and the effort she made to chase the matter (including making 2 complaints).
- Completing a timely inspection (on 3 November 2023) and attempting different repairs (unblocking gutters and resealing ceiling tiles in late January 2024).
- Checking repairs that had been completed to ensure the standard was appropriate, which is something its repair policy states it may do.
- Confirming its next actions would be to clean the algae from the wall near the resident’s door and to investigate a larger area of gutters.
- Assuring it would continue to work with specialists to find a solution and would monitor the success of any repairs undertaken.
- The landlord gave no dates in the final response for when the repairs would be completed. In the absence of a specified timescale, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have completed repairs within its repair timescales. And for the resident to be kept updated about any delays as part of the landlord’s monitoring of its actions.
- The landlord cleaned the algae on 24 May 2024, within its routine repair timescale. It inspected the gutters on 11 July 2024, around 20 working days beyond its target. There was no evident reason for the time this took in the records. During this delay, the landlord did not update the resident or set expectations, so did not follow its commitment to good communication made in the repair policy.
- The landlord later updated the resident on 23 July 2024, explaining that it would carry out further joint investigations using a drainage contractor. This level of detail was in keeping with what its repairs policy commits to provide for cases where it is unable to resolve an issue at an appointment. It had also appointed a resident liaison officer to have oversight of the repair and act as a point of contact for the resident. This was a positive action to take and we saw that this improved communication with the resident.
- According to the available records and information from the resident, the leak has not been permanently fixed. We understand this is likely because the landlord is still pursuing a claim against the warranty provider. It was reasonable for the landlord to do so, given its conclusion that a defect caused the leak and the potential repair costs. In such cases the landlord may not have control over the sequence and timeline of the claim. It was positive to hear from the resident that she has recently been updated. However, we are mindful that, the problem appears to be unresolved after more than 4 years. And that almost a year has passed since records show the landlord was looking to pursue a claim against the warranty provider.
- Given the above, we foundservice failure because of the further delays and shortfall in communication with the agreed investigations from the stage 2 response. We have orderedthe landlord to take some actions to remedy this, including compensation to recognise the additional and cumulative impacts.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaints policy reflected the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and distinguished between service requests and expressions of dissatisfaction. There was no record of the resident’s August 2022 complaint in those provided. However, the landlord later noted that it closed the complaint as resolved without evidence of action or a formal response. The landlord accepted that it took no repair or investigation steps after the complaint and offered compensation for the resulting delays. This was appropriate in view of its failure to follow its complaint policy by neither responding formally nor completing the required service actions.
- Under the complaints policy, the landlord was required to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receiving them. It must have then responded at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It could extend these timescales to a maximum of 20 working days but would let the resident know first.
- The resident complained on 24 October 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 31 October 2024, within its timeframe. It then responded at stage 1 on 5 December 2023, 25 working days after the acknowledgement. This was a delay of 15 working days. We saw no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of its need for more time to respond. This means it cannot evidence that it followed its policy, which is a failing.
- On 12 March 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord met its acknowledgement timescale by sending it on 20 March 2024. It then wrote to the resident on 19 April 2024 advising of the need to extend the timescale to gather more information. This was within 16 working days on 15 May 2024, which was within the maximum time allowed. It therefore followed its policy process and timescales, so the fact it took longer than the standard 20 working days was not a failing.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delays in its responses. Its compensation award of £100 was above the amount its compensation policy states it may pay for complaint handling failures, which allowed for payments of between £15 and £50. However, it was reasonable in the circumstances that it was unable to demonstrate that it took any meaningful action after the resident’s first complaint.
- The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will confirm any timescales for agreed actions. It is also a requirement of the Code to set out what will happen and when. The landlord was also required to monitor actions to completion. The stage 1 response gave a date for when the proposed works would take place, but the stage 2 response gave no indication of when it intended to clean the wall and inspect the gutters. It did therefore not follow its policy. However, we saw evidence the landlord had oversight of what was happening with the repairs, in keeping with its policy.
- In view of the above, we find the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to remedy the impact of its complaint handling failings.
Learning
Communal repair
- The landlord is encouraged to consider taking learning from its handling of communal repairs in this case. Such as considering why no further actions were undertaken after the surveyor’s inspection in February 2022.
Complaint handling
- The landlord should ensure that it follows its complaints policy and the Code in providing timescales for when repairs will be completed.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We were largely satisfied with the standard of the available records. There were, however, some gaps highlighted in the report. We encourage the landlord to consider taking any learning to improve either its record keeping or sharing practices. Our reason is that, while not a barrier to our investigation in this case, insufficient evidence could lead to an unfavourable outcome in other cases.
Communication
- After the resident complained the landlord significantly improved its communication. It kept reasonably regular contact with her when it had information to share and provided meaningful updates when available.