Southern Housing (202452454)

Decision
Case ID	202452454
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	28 May 2026

Background

1. The resident and her husband, who are joint leaseholders, bought their home in a new building development in early 2023. The freeholder is responsible for repairs and defects to the building through a managing agent. The landlord, a leaseholder, is responsible for reporting issues on behalf of residents. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repair issues and her request to use one of the disabled parking bays.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of an outstanding repair to a bedroom window.
   2. Reports of a faulty communal intercom.
   3. Requests to replace a washing machine.
   4. Requests to use a disabled parking space.
   5. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress for the bedroom window repair.
   2. Maladministration for the communal intercom repair.
   3. Reasonable redress for the washing machine aspect.
   4. Service failure for the disabled parking space issue.
   5. Reasonable redress for complaint handling.

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

 

 

 

Summary of reasons

Window repair

4. The landlord appropriately took accountability for the failings of the freeholder or managing agent not completing a full and effective repair within a reasonable time. It also took appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right.

Communal intercom

5. The landlord did not show it took effective action to progress the communal intercom repair after the resident reported it. While it was reasonable to refer the issue to the managing agent, there was no evidence the landlord monitored the repair properly or worked with the managing agent to resolve it within a reasonable time. The delay, lack of clear records, and failure to show consideration of the resident’s reported mobility issues meant the landlord did not demonstrate it met its obligations.

Replacement washing machine

6. The landlord was not responsible for the washing machine, as faults with gifted white goods should be addressed through the manufacturer. While it failed to demonstrate it initially acted on the resident’s request for proof of purchase, it took reasonable steps to obtain it. It also awarded compensation for the minor service failing and the resident’s time and trouble.

Disabled parking space

7. The landlord’s communications about the disabled parking spaces were unclear and contradictory, which caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. While the landlord later considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010, it could not evidence that this was clearly communicated to the resident. Compensation was therefore appropriate, but reimbursement of parking costs was not, as there was no evidence the resident was entitled to a space.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not follow its complaint handling timescales, with delays at both stages and insufficient updates, which was not in line with its policy. However, it acknowledged the delays, apologised, and largely provided clear responses, despite some lack of clarity in how compensation was described. The compensation offered was proportionate to the complaint handling failures and aligned with relevant guidance.

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. It must provide evidence of this to us within 4 weeks.	No later than 26 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 compensation, made up of: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in the intercom repair. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication over the disabled parking spaces. It must pay the resident directly and provide evidence within 4 weeks.	No later than 26 June 2026
3	Update order The landlord must write to the resident updating her on the present situation with the intercom repair. It must: Confirm when the intercom was repaired/reinstated following the resident’s 14 November 2024 report. Advise if the problem with the intercom failing has reoccurred since and how many times. If appropriate, advise what it has done or will do to ensure the managing agent/freeholder completes a lasting repair. Explain if no further repair action is deemed necessary and why.   It must provide us with a copy of its response within 6 weeks.	No later than 10 July 2026
4	Specific action order 1 The landlord must consider and respond to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of service charges for when the intercom was not working. It must: Consider and/or request from the resident evidence of when she reported the intercom had failed (prior to 14 November 2024). Obtain any repair logs from the management agent showing when the intercom was reinstated. Explain how it arrived at its decision, including the evidence from repair logs, the resident, and (if appropriate) its calculations for any refund. The landlord must send us evidence of the above within 6 weeks.	No later than 10 July 2026
5	Specific action order 2 The landlord must write to the resident clarifying the current position on the availability or usability of the disabled car parking spaces by the due date. It must also include clear instructions for any action she needs to take to either gain access or to apply for it. The landlord must provide evidence it has complied with this within 4 weeks.	No later than 26 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 November 2024	The resident complained that she was unable to claim under warranty for a replacement washing machine that came with the flat because the landlord was unable to provide proof of purchase.
29 November 2024	The landlord sent an acknowledgement confirming the resident had complained about: Outstanding repairs to a window and communal intercom. Its handling of the washing machine claim. That the disabled bays were being used by contractors. It confirmed she was seeking the window to be replaced, intercom fixed, a disabled parking space, and compensation for replacing the washing machine.
10 January 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: It was sorry the resident had been waiting for a repair to a bedroom window since September 2024. It mistakenly raised a repair for the intercom with its own contractor but since reported it to the managing agent. It had “exhausted” all options available to help with the washing machine replacement and signposted her to the manufacturer about the warranty. The disabled bays were being used by the developers contractors. It would update her again about the outstanding repairs and the disabled bay. It had awarded compensation of £340, made up of: £125 for the inconvenience, time and trouble relating to the washing machine. £75 for the inconvenience, time and trouble from the window repair. £60 for the failure to repair the window. £15 for failure to follow policy. £15 for the resident needing to chase. £50 for complaint handling.
20 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation reasons as: After 2 years and 3 failed attempts the window was not fixed and she was given no notice of some appointments. The communal intercom had not been working for 6 months causing her inconvenience as a vulnerable person. She was unhappy with the stage 1 response to contact the manufacturer about the washing machine because she already had. The disabled parking had not been accessible for 2 years and she believed this was illegal. The resident advised she was seeking more compensation (including refunds of service charge payments for the intercom), a new washing machine, repairs to be completed, and use of the disabled parking bays.
21 March 2025	In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said: The window repair was complete but it apologised she had to accommodate multiple visits. It had chased the intercom repair up with the managing agent and would update her by 28 March. It would consider amending the service charge for the intercom but asked for evidence she reported the fault 6 months prior. The manufacturer was responsible for replacing the washing machine. The developer had confirmed the disabled bays would not be accessible until its contractor had completed work. It was sorry for the delayed complaint response which was due to unexpected leave. Had awarded an additional £90 (£430 in total), comprised of: £50 for the stage 2 complaint handling. £25 for the delayed stage 2. £15 for repeat visits for the window repair.
28 March 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident advising there was a fault with the intercom system and the managing agent had passed the matter to the freeholder to review. It confirmed an update would be circulated to all following this. The landlord also paid the resident the £430 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and level of compensation. She said the issues had caused inconvenience. She sought increased compensation, including reimbursement of intercom-related service charges, which she said still failed intermittently. She also wanted access to the disabled parking bays and reimbursement for her parking permit and replacement washing machine costs.

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	Reports of an outstanding repair to a bedroom window
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. Under the terms of the lease and repeated in a new home guide for residents in the development, the landlord is responsible for reporting repairs and defects to the managing agent or freeholder. The guide states the timescale for completing urgent defect repairs was within 5 days and routine ones in 28 days.
10. In its communications, and complaint responses, the landlord took responsibility for reporting, chasing, and updating the resident. This was appropriate given its obligations under the lease. While true, the repair logs provided were clearly lacking and did not include some of the detail referred to in the complaint responses. They were insufficient to show that the landlord was always acting in the way it should. While the gaps in the evidence made it more challenging for us to establish a timeline of events, it was not a significant barrier to us reaching a decision in this case. It does though mean the landlord has not been able to evidence that it always met its repair obligations. We will highlight any gaps and, where appropriate, any other relevant evidence we have considered, including the resident’s account.
11. It was undisputed that the resident reported a cracked bedroom window and that the full repair took around 2 years. This included 3 incorrect measurements and appointments attended without notice. Nothing in the resident’s contact or the landlord’s responses indicate this was considered an emergency repair issue. And the resident confirmed interim repairs were completed. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to accept the resident was inconvenienced and take steps to put things right. A 2-year delay was well beyond the timescales in the home guide and was not reasonable.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy has provisions for service failings, such as delayed repairs, and impacts arising from its failings, such as distress and inconvenience. This included paying £20 for a failed or missed appointment, between £15-£50 for service failure, and £50-£250 for minor distress and inconvenience. The landlord awarded £60 for 3 missed or failed appointments, £15 for failing to follow procedure, and £125 for distress and inconvenience. These amounts were in line with its policy and within our compensation scale (£100-£600). Overall, the compensation was proportionate to the service failures and its impact on the resident.

Complaint	Reports of a faulty communal intercom
Finding	Maladministration

13. Our March 2022 spotlight report on private freeholders and managing agents recognised the complex and sometimes challenging position both landlords and residents were put in when repairs arise. We recommended landlords have or seek service level agreements with freeholders and managing agents. However, we saw no timescales for when residents should expect repairs to be completed by the managing agent in this case.
14. On 14 November 2024, the resident reported that she could not use the intercom to let visitors into the building. She said this affected medication deliveries and was causing difficulty because of her mobility problems. In those circumstances, we would expect the landlord to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord logged the issue as a repair and marked it complete the next day. However, the evidence does not show what action it took. About 2 weeks later, the resident complained that the intercom was still not working. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had first raised the repair with its own contractor in error and then referred it to the managing agent. It was reasonable to refer the matter to the managing agent, but it should also have communicated with and worked closely with it to ensure the repair was completed quickly. And there are no records to show it did. As such, it failed to demonstrate it met its obligations to the resident.
15. When the landlord sent its final response on 21 March 2025 it was apparent that the intercom was still not working. This was 4 months (around 3 months over a routine repair target) after the records show the resident reported the fault. While we recognise some issues are more complex than others, the landlord has not demonstrated in its records or responses that there were good reasons for the time it was taking up to that point.
16. After the complaints process, the landlord met its commitment to update the resident by 28 March 2025. It said the managing agent had passed the matter to the freeholder to consider a solution and that residents would be updated via a circulation. We saw no records after this point. However, the resident advised us that the intercom works but breaks down regularly. She said she was told that the manufacturer of the system no longer operates and there is therefore no long-term solution. Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to update the resident on the situation.
17. The resident advised that she seeks reimbursement of the service charges she has paid for the intercom. We expect a landlord to consider reimbursing service charges where it is evident that a specific service has not been provided. In which case our compensation guide states the compensation will be determined by the level of the charge. In its final response the landlord offered to consider this if the resident provided evidence that she had reported the fault 6 months earlier. This was a reasonable solution given the first report was noted to be from mid-November 2024. We did not see records that the resident responded to this. However, we have ordered the landlord to review this with the relevant team, and to give the resident an opportunity to submit supporting evidence, if she has not already.
18. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, it does not award compensation for issues relating to communal repairs. However, it will award a discretionary payment for the impact to individuals. Given the failings set out above, and the impact the resident was caused, we have ordered the landlord to take action to put things right. This includes paying compensation in line with its policy and our guidance.

Complaint	Requests to replace a washing machine
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. According to the new homes guide for the resident’s development the resident’s property was “gifted” some white goods, including a washing machine. It also states that residents are responsible for validating the 12-month warranty provided by the manufacturer. The guide advises that faulty white goods are not considered defects and directs residents to report them directly to the manufacturer.
20. On 5 January 2024, the resident’s husband (hereon referred to jointly as ‘the resident’ for ease) asked the landlord to send the proof of purchase directly to the manufacturer to allow it to send an engineer to fix a fault. The landlord or the freeholder were not liable for repairs or replacing the washing machine. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer assistance in trying to obtain information she was seeking.
21. We saw no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s request. It is not known if this was because the landlord failed to respond, or that it did but did not record it. Either way, it is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate it took action. However, it was apparent from the resident’s next contact, around 8 months later, that the manufacturer had by that time attempted a repair. This indicates that the resident was able to get support via the manufacturer. So, we cannot see a significant impact arising from the landlord’s failure.
22. The landlord made reasonable attempts to assist the resident in contacting the freeholder twice about the situation. Its advice about pursuing the matter through the manufacturer was also consistent with the guide. We also saw it attempted to obtain the proof of purchase but the freeholder said the contractor purchased the white goods. While the landlord took some appropriate action, it would have been reasonable to contact, or provide the resident with details for, the contractor who purchased the goods. This was not a failure with significant impact. However, taking this step would have shown the landlord had exhausted all options. The landlord’s compensation of £125 was reasonable for the resident’s time and trouble and slightly exceeded the level we would have ordered.

Complaint	Requests to use a disabled parking space
Finding	Service failure

23. The resident’s purchase documents stated that the property does not come with an allocated parking space. It also states in the new home guide there was no parking on the development other than 2 disabled spaces which was for “individual users and are only for their use.”
24. Records confirm that, prior to complaining, the resident enquired about using the disabled spaces because she had a blue badge. The landlord advised in an email of 20 June 2024 that these were allocated to 2 households for their use. This explanation is consistent with what’s written in the new home guide. However, it then implied in the complaint responses that she may be able to use the spaces in future but after contractors had finished working on the development. The landlord’s responses were unclear and, on the face of it, contradictory.
25. The landlord advised us that it informed the resident in October 2024 there was no absolute duty to provide disabled parking on private land, which is correct. It also said it had considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and, for that reason, gave the resident details to apply directly to the freeholder for consideration of access to a space. However, we saw no evidence that the resident or her household received this communication. And she made no reference to it in her contacts. The landlord should also have confirmed this in its complaint responses and did not.
26. Overall, the landlord’s communication about the disabled spaces was unclear and caused avoidable time and trouble. We have therefore ordered redress, including compensation. We have not ordered reimbursement of parking costs because the evidence does not show the resident should have been allocated a disabled parking space.

Complaint	Associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

27. The landlord’s complaints policy reflected the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receiving them. This must include the aspects of the complaint and outcomes sought. The landlord followed its timescales and process at both stages.
28. The landlord must have then responded at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. But it can extend these timescales to a maximum of 20 working days but will let the resident know first. The landlord exceeded both of its standard timescales at both stages taking:
    1. 31 working days from the resident’s complaint on 22 November 2024 to respond at stage 1 on 10 January 2025.
    2. 41 working days from the escalation on 20 January 2025 to reply at stage 2 on 21 March 2025.
29.  While we saw it followed its process in informing the resident it needed more time (on 2 January 2025), its response was already delayed at that point. And it then took an additional 1 working day than the revised timescale. There was then no update to the resident, that we have seen, at stage 2. It therefore did not reasonably act in line with its policy.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will explain decisions and details of remedies offered clearly. We largely found the complaint responses met this standard by explaining the position on each aspect and took steps to put things right. However, we found some of the descriptions of the compensation awards, such as “chasing”, vague and did not obviously relate to a specific issue. It would have been better if the landlord had attributed this to a specific failing. While true, we did not find this had an adverse impact.
31. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delays in its responses. Its compensation award of between £25-£50 (and £125 in total) was within the ranges its compensation policy states it may pay for complaint handling failures, which allowed for payments of between £15 and £50. It was also within the scale (£50-£250) our compensation policy recommends for impacts arising from complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The standard of the record keeping in this case were inadequate and this contributed to us finding failings. The landlord offered us no reason for this. However, it is consistent with our findings in other investigations into the landlord where a managing agent was responsible for repairs. We published our findings and recommendations in May 2024, before some of the events concerned in this investigation. In this we recommended the landlord include knowledge and information-sharing protocols with third parties in contracts.
33. We encourage the landlord to act on this recommendation. Not having an audit trail of repairs puts it at risk of further unfavourable outcomes from not being able to demonstrate it has met its obligations.

Communication

34. As highlighted above, the communication with the resident was generally poor. Both in terms of the landlord not being proactive about updating the resident and the standard of the information provided. The landlord must ensure it follows its complaints process and the Code in informing residents when it needs more time for an investigation. It should also consider how it can improve communication where a third party is responsible for a repair. Improving its record-sharing practices and setting out clear service level agreements may be key to this.