Southern Housing (202450796)

Decision
Case ID	202450796
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 January 2025

Background

The resident lives with her 4 children. She complained that the landlord had not completed repairs to her kitchen, her gates, and a storage box.
She also complained that the landlord had incorrect information on its systems and that it should have told her that she could use outstanding repairs as a counterclaim against the suspended possession order it had obtained for rent arrears. However, the landlord did not address these in its complaints responses and we have therefore been unable to investigate these issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Kitchen repairs.
2. Repairs to gates.
3. Repairs to a storage box.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to gates.
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a storage box.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Kitchen repairs

There was a delay of over 2 years in resolving the kitchen repairs. This was caused by various issues including not raising jobs for follow on work, miscommunication, and sourcing of doors.

Gates

There was miscommunication between the landlord and contractor and the issue with the back gate is still outstanding.

Storage box

There were delays because the landlord initially said that it was not responsible for the storage box and then changed this opinion. The landlord has failed to communicate with the resident regarding what it can do and the issue is still outstanding.

Complaint

The landlord did not follow its policy, there were delays in the complaint handling process, and it did not address all the complaint points in the complaint responses.

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 provided by a manager. 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 11 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 made up as follows: £700 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen repairs. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by it handling of the gate repairs. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs or removal of the storage box. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 February 2026
3	The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to advise her what action it will take regarding the storage box. It should give a timescale for completion of any work identified. It must provide us evidence of this correspondence.	No later than 18 February 2026
4	Inspection Order The landlord must inspect the kitchen to ensure that mould is no longer present. If mould is present, it must consider if this amounts to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The survey report must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any damp and mould. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 25 February 2026
5	Completing the repair to the back gate The landlord must take all steps to ensure that it repairs the back gate promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 25 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should record where it sourced the replacement kitchen doors from on its systems. This is to ensure that there are no future delays in sourcing replacement kitchen doors for this property and others with the same type of kitchen.
The landlord should ensure that its records show that it is responsible for the maintenance of the storage box at this property and any other similar properties to prevent similar delays in the future.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: She had been reporting multiple urgent repairs for 2 years. Her kitchen was a risk to health due to mould and water damage. The worktop had come away from the wall allowing water to seep into the cupboards. The landlord had false information on its systems. This included information that she had refused to have work carried out, that she was ordering replacement kitchen doors from Italy and that a member of staff had told her that she would have new worktops and splashbacks. She thought this may have contributed to the landlord not completing the repairs. She had reported that her front gate was not closing last year and her back gate was misaligned. However, the landlord had failed to repair these. She had asked the contractor who came to repair the gate to document that the storage box in her garden was storm damaged and infested with insects. However, she did not know if they had done so.
13 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 complaint.
27 February 2025	The resident emailed the landlord about the complaint. She said that she thought that the landlord should have told her that she could use the outstanding repairs as a counter claim against the suspended possession order it had obtained because she had rent arrears.
27 February 2025	The landlord extended the deadline for responding to the complaint to 13 March 2025.
13 March 2025	The landlord extended the deadline for responding to the complaint to 21 March 2025.
21 March 2025	The landlord extended the deadline for responding to the complaint to 28 March 2025.
28 March 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that: It apologised that the contractor had not returned to repair the front and back gates. It had now raised a new job and a contractor would contact her to make an appointment. It had been unable to find a job raised for the storage trunk. This was not something that it would repair or remove and it apologised for any miscommunication regarding this. An operative had attended the property on 26 June 2024 to repair kitchen cupboards. However, he advised that she had asked for another surveyor visit because she was told that she would have new worktops and splashbacks and 3 doors were being ordered from Italy. It had marked the job as complete without referring it to a surveyor. It apologised for this. A surveyor attended to look at the kitchen on 26 March 2025. They had decided that the work top did not need replacement and the splashback could either be stuck back on or replaced with a row of tiles. It would contact her to book appointments for the gates and flooring by 18 April 2025. It offered £265 compensation comprising £20 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £125 for inconvenience, time, and trouble, £15 for failure to follow process, £15 for repeat visits, £15 for her repeatedly having to chase, £15 for miscommunication, and £60 for repair failure.
30 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that: The landlord had not covered all the points she had raised. The compensation offered did not reflect the amount of time the repairs had been outstanding. She would like another surveyor to give a second opinion.
4 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It provided a further acknowledgement on 7 April 2025.
8 May 2025	The landlord extended the deadline for responding to the complaint to 22 May 2025.
22 May 2025	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. It now realised that the storage box was integrated into the wall of the property. It apologised that it did not realise this at stage 1. It gave the resident an email address to ask about the viability of removing it. It apologised that the contractor had not yet contacted her about the back gate. It would close the complaint with a commitment that a contractor would contact her within 10 working days to arrange a visit. It thanked her for explaining that she had continual issues with water ingress behind the sink unit. It agreed that it would make this area watertight. The repairs team would contact her by 6 June 2025 to give an update on the kitchen works. It had sourced a new supplier of kitchen cupboards and so it should be able to book the work. the repairs team would update her within 10 days. In addition to the compensation awarded at stage 1 it would award a further £45 comprising £15 for the inaccurate information given about the storage box, £15 for further inconvenience due to the kitchen repairs, and £15 for further inconvenience caused by the gate repair,
Referral to the Ombudsman	In December 2025 the resident told us that the landlord completed all the kitchen repairs in November 2025, although the landlord has advised that it did so in September 2025. She said the back gate will still not shut and the storage box has not been removed. She said she would like the work completed and compensation for the distress 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	Kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 21 calendar days.
The resident reported the issues with the kitchen unit doors on 14 September 2023. An operative attended on 29 September 2023 but they could not resolve the issue because replacement doors were not available. However, the landlord did not raise another job for follow on work for this. This cost the resident time and trouble chasing the landlord. It also caused her distress and inconvenience because she was living with the issue for longer than necessary.
The landlord raised a repair job to inspect the kitchen work top on 29 September 2023 because it was coming away from the wall and this meant that water was going down the back of it causing damage to the base units. A surveyor attended on 4 December 2023 and noted that the worktop needed replacement and 3 kitchen unit doors were damaged. The surveyor noted that another joint appointment was needed to clarify what work should be done.
There was then a further delay of over 4 months before the landlord raised a job to replace the upstand at the back of the work top and to say that the kitchen doors were damaged. A contractor attended over 2 months later, on 26 June 2024. However, they did not complete the job. They noted that the resident was expecting a new work top and that her 3 doors were being ordered from Italy. Therefore, she wanted to speak to a surveyor and supervisor. However, we have seen no evidence that this was actioned. This error cost her time and trouble raising a complaint.
Further delays followed which were caused by sourcing of suitable kitchen doors. The resident took further time and trouble contacting the landlord for updates. The landlord finally resolved the over 2 years after the resident first reported them.
In summary, there was an unacceptable delay in the landlord completing the repairs and it failed to follow its repairs policy. This cost the resident considerable time and trouble and caused her distress and inconvenience. She was particularly concerned about the mould growth due to water seeping down the back of the work tops but we have seen no evidence that the landlord has addressed this. We have therefore ordered it to inspect this further and treat the mould if required. It offered the resident around £245 compensation for this element of the complaint. However, we do not feel that this is proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failings. Therefore we have ordered it to pay her £700 to reflect this.

Complaint	Gates.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported that the front and rear gates to the property were not secure on 21 November 2024. The landlord emailed a contractor on 22 November 2024 to say that a gate needed to be tightened to the post. However, there is no evidence that the contractor or landlord followed this up. This cost the resident time and trouble making a complaint. It also caused her distress because she felt that it was a security risk.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had raised a job for the gates with a contractor. However, we have seen no evidence of this apart from an internal email dated 28 April 2025 in which the landlord said that a contractor should be asked to attend to fix a gate.
The stage 2 complaint response of 22 May 2025 said that this contractor would contact the resident within 10 working days. However, again we have seen no evidence that they did so and, although the resident has advised us that the front gate is now secure, she has said that the back gate still does not close properly.
Due to the errors identified and the landlord’s failure to repair the back gate there was maladministration in its handling of this element of the complaint. We have therefore ordered it to rectify the issue. The landlord offered the resident £15 compensation for the delay. However, we do not feel that this is proportionate to the time, trouble, and distress caused. We have therefore ordered it to pay her £150 compensation to reflect this.

Complaint	Storage box
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s website confirms that residents should report repairs by telephone, email, or via its website.
On 6 February 2025 the resident told the landlord that she had mentioned the damaged storage trunk to a contractor that attended the property previously. However, there is no record of this conversation or the date it happened which is understandable as she did not report it via the recommended routes.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it was not its responsibility to repair the storage box. However, it later confirmed that this was an error as it was “fixed into the fabric of the wall”. This error cost the resident further time and trouble contacting the landlord again and providing photographs, it also caused her frustration.
The landlord then asked the resident to contact the contractor herself to find out about the viability of removing the box. However, it would have been better customer service for it to contact the contractor to discuss options, as it was able to make decisions, rather than relying on the resident to do so.
An internal email dated 20 October 2025 said that the landlord intended to remove the lid of the storage box that week. It has provided a photograph of a temporary repair which shows that it has covered the box with plastic sheeting. The resident has told us that she has had no further updates.
Due to the landlord’s failure to provide a permanent resolution to the issue, or provide further communication about what it can do, there was maladministration in its handling of this element of the complaint. It offered the resident £30 compensation regarding this. However, we do not feel that this is proportionate to the time and trouble caused. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay £100 to reflect this and to provide an update regarding what it will do about the box.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It also says that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If it is unable to do so it will explain why and agree a response date with the resident.
In this case the landlord took 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint at both stages and a further 32 working days to provide a complaint response at each stage. It extended the timescale for responding to the stage 1 complaint 3 times. There is evidence that it did not agree all these extensions with the resident because she took time and trouble to contact it to say that she was unhappy with the third extension.
An internal email dated 13 March 2025 said that “this one has been missed by us”. This indicates that reason the landlord gave the resident for the extensions was not accurate. These delays and failures to follow its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by us.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that when an organisation informs a resident about an extension to these timescales, they must be provided with our contact details.
Although the landlord’s complaints policy states that residents can contact us if they are not happy with the extension, in this case none of the extension notifications included this information or our contact details. This failure to follow the Code meant that the resident may have been unaware of this information.
The Code also says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In this case the resident said that the landlord had incorrect information on its systems, did not advise her that she could counterclaim at the rent arrears hearing, and that she was concerned about mould in the kitchen. However, the landlord did not mention these points in its complaint responses or say why it was not investigating them. This failure means that the resident did not receive a full response and we are also unable to investigate these parts of the complaint as they have not completed the complaint process. She had to take time and trouble escalating this to us.
Due to the delays, not providing our contact details, and not addressing all elements there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint. It offered the resident £20 compensation for the late stage 1 complaint response. However, we do not consider this proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £150 compensation to reflect this.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that it agrees extensions of complaint timescales with residents and gives our contact details with each extension. It should also ensure that complaint handlers address all issues raised in complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Repair record keeping was not always complete, specifically regarding repair completion dates. For example, the mould wash job was cancelled stating that the work was completed on another order, but we could see no evidence of this. Additionally, jobs for follow on work were not always raised.

Communication

Communication regarding the ongoing repairs was poor which meant that the resident had to contact the landlord for updates.