Southern Housing (202503447)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202503447 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southern Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
18 May 2026 |
Background
- The resident viewed the property and raised concerns about several repair issues. The landlord assured her that these would be resolved. However, after signing the tenancy agreement, the resident reported that the issues remained outstanding. She raised a complaint as she said this prevented her from moving into the property until the works were completed. At the time of this investigation, the issues have been resolved.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
- Handling of the associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found the landlord responsible for:
- Maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
- No maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Property condition
- There was a lack of effective oversight to ensure the property met lettable standards before the tenancy began, and extensive outstanding repairs were identified shortly after the tenancy started. The landlord’s communication fell short of expectations, with limited engagement, poor coordination between the landlord’s teams, and repair delays. There was also limited consideration of the resident’s circumstances and the impact on her. The compensation offered through the complaints process was not proportionate to the extent of these failings or their impact.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling aligned with the overall expectations of its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices.
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 15 June 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. This is inclusive of the £175 awarded during its complaints procedure. It also includes a £15 payment for a missed appointment on 18 February 2025. 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 made. |
No later than 15 June 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend that the landlord review its approach to ensuring properties are ready to let. This should include consideration of the training provided to staff to ensure properties meet lettable standards, in line with its lettable standards policy. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
26 February 2025 |
The resident complained about the sign-up process and the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. She said:
|
|
18 March 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It:
The landlord awarded £175 compensation consisting of:
|
|
21 March 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said:
|
|
25 April 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and did not uphold the resident’s request for a rent refund. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused but said the property was not uninhabitable at any time. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as she did not feel the landlord had taken full responsibility for the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy or the impact this had on 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident viewed the property in January 2025 and raised several concerns with the landlord about outstanding issues. The landlord said it would address these before the resident moved in. This was appropriate as it reflected its obligations under its repairs and lettable standards policies. However, it is unclear what action the landlord took beyond passing the resident’s concerns to its voids team. The absence of a clear audit trail beyond this point falls short of our record keeping expectations.
- The available evidence does not support the landlord’s later assurance that the property was ready to let or that the resident’s concerns had been addressed. A works order valued at £1,400 was raised around 2 weeks after it told her that all issues had been resolved. The landlord’s complaint responses also confirmed that repairs remained outstanding when the tenancy began. This indicates shortcomings in its oversight of the voids process and in ensuring the property met its lettable standards. It is also likely that this affected the resident’s trust in the landlord from the outset.
- In these circumstances, clear and timely communication was particularly important. Effective communication can reduce distress and inconvenience and help landlords to rebuild trust. The landlord’s communication with the resident repeatedly fell short of this.
- The landlord’s records lack a clear audit trail explaining how it concluded, on 11 February 2025, that the electricity issue was due to the resident needing to set up an account with the energy supplier. It then failed to respond to her request to urgently discuss the matter, falling short of our communication expectations. This limited meaningful engagement with the resident at a critical time and likely contributed to her feeling ignored and unsupported.
- On 13 February 2025, the resident told the landlord’s lettings team that the issues she had previously raised remained unresolved. She said this had added to her sense of being overwhelmed, as she had given birth around 5 days earlier. The lettings team replied that, as the property was now occupied, it had “nothing to do” with them and directed the resident to another team. This response did not acknowledge the resident’s circumstances and showed a lack of accountability. It also indicates a further missed opportunity for effective communication between teams, which would have demonstrated to the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously.
- The landlord appropriately raised emergency repair orders for the loss of water on 13 February 2025 and the loss of electricity on 17 February 2025. However, its overall handling of both issues showed limited oversight. It did not meet its 6-hour emergency response target for the electricity repair, as attendance did not take place until 19 February 2025. There is no evidence that it took reasonable steps to secure access when earlier appointments were unsuccessful.
- It also failed to ensure that its contractor followed a recorded adjustment to contact the resident 30 minutes before arrival. This led to further missed access and required the resident to contact the landlord again to arrange a further appointment, which took place the following day. During which, it was confirmed that the resident needed to contact her supplier for the supply to be reinstated.
- While a water supply issue at around the same time was resolved within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord has not explained why the supply had been isolated in the first placed. When considered alongside the concurrent loss of electricity, this further undermines its position that the property was ready to let. The landlord also accepted that this issue led to further repair issues occurring once the water was reinstated, which caused the resident further inconvenience.
- In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord declined to refund the resident for the period between the tenancy start date and the completion of repairs around 5 March 2025. It said this was because the property remained habitable throughout, while acknowledging that the repairs would have made the move less “comfortable”. We have seen no evidence to confirm that the property was uninhabitable. However, the landlord’s position did not give adequate weight to the extent of the impact on the resident, given her increased vulnerabilities at the time and the range of issues she experienced.
It is positive that the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would learn from the resident’s experience. This aligns with our expectation that landlords learn from outcomes and shows some accountability for the failures identified. - The landlord awarded the resident £175 compensation for the impact of these failures. Given the failings identified and the likely impact on the resident, this was not fair or proportionate. In considering what amount may be appropriate, we have had regard to our compensation guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. In line with the Code, its complaints policy states that complaints at both stages should be acknowledged within 5 working days. It also says it will provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. In this case, the landlord acknowledged and issued a formal response at both stages within reasonable timescales.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.