Southern Housing (202509645)

Background

1. The resident had a leak from her shower which she has said prevented her from using it. She has a son with autism, who has water sensory needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and associated repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated repairs.
4. There was reasonable redress 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 a leak and associated repairs

5. The resident had a leak to her shower from 6 November 2024. She advised this caused damage to her kitchen ceiling, and that she was unable to use the shower. The resident has a child with autism who has water sensory needs. The landlord offered compensation at stage 2, however the shower repair remained outstanding. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted with urgency to complete the repair, or that it provided sufficient support to the resident, despite known vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged that it did not provide an adequate explanation when it issued an extension letter for its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged it did not act in line with our Complaint Handling Code, when issuing 2 extensions at stage 2. It offered £165 compensation, which was reasonable in line with our remedies 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident reported the leak on 6 November 2024. The landlord noted this as urgent however due to a system error it did not carry out the repair. The resident has advised us she tried to report this in December 2024 and January 2025 and the landlord told her she would get a call back within 5 working days. She said she did not get call backs. These calls are not in the landlord’s records. However, we consider that the landlord had a responsibility to complete the repair, particularly as it had marked it as an urgent matter. It did not do this.
8. On 27 January 2025 the resident reported that the power cord for the shower had broken. The landlord noted that there were no other washing facilities. It scheduled the repair for 11 February 2025. The landlord was aware that the resident had a child with autism. Given the vulnerability in the home, and the lack of washing facilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it needed to raise an urgent appointment. We have not seen evidence that the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s circumstances. It did not follow its repairs policy which said it will prioritise repairs for circumstances where there is an adverse affect on a person with a medical condition.
9. On 24 February 2025 the landlord re-raised the appointment for the leaking shower. The landlord attended on 11 March 2025 and identified follow on works. While it was appropriate that the landlord attended, we note the repair was marked as urgent. As it did not attend within 24 hours, it did not follow its repairs policy.
10. The resident raised a complaint on 12 March 2025. She noted that her son needed to shower daily as he had water sensory requirements. On being made aware of these needs it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the resident required any additional support. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it needed to expedite the works to repair the leak. We have not seen evidence the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s circumstances, and the resident contacted again on 17 March 2025, to advise it had not contacted her.
11. On 25 March 2025 the resident reported that the leak was pouring through her kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended on 28 March 2025 but said it could not complete the repairs as it would leave the resident without washing facilities because they could not complete them on the same day. The resident spoke with the landlord on that day and said that it was leaving her without a shower. She had been reporting that she could not use the shower prior to this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore the resident’s concerns regarding not having a shower. If the landlord felt the shower was useable, it should have discussed this with the resident. We cannot see it did this.
12. The resident chased the works on 1 April 2025 and 3 April 2025. She contacted the landlord on 7 April 2025 and said she had no shower since November 2024 and that she was relying on family and friends to use their shower. She said that her son was struggling with the changes to his routine. The landlord said it would follow this up with its contractors. It sent an internal email on 8 April 2025 for an inspection of the bathroom to be done at the earliest opportunity. This was an appropriate action, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the contractor that the matter was urgent, given the circumstances.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that an inspection was carried out on 14 April 2025 however due to recording issues the operative had to return the following day to record the findings.. The landlord said the resident would be contacted within 5 working days regarding the works. We have not seen evidence that it did this.
14. We note the landlord offered £64.91 for lack of washing facilities in its stage 1 response. While the landlord did not specify the time period for this compensation, based on the amount, we consider it was likely during the period the power cord was not working. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy awards 25% of rent for no washing facilities, and the amount awarded was 25% of rent for 15 days, which matches the power cord repair time. While the landlord acknowledged this period without a shower, it did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns that she was still unable to use the shower. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had understood the resident’s concerns. We have seen later internal communications which stated that the resident could use the shower, although the water poured into the kitchen. We consider that if a leak is causing damage, it may not be reasonable to assume the shower is useable. We would expect the landlord to have assessed any potential damage caused by the leak, and advise the resident accordingly of the useability of the shower.
15. In an internal email dated 15 April 2025, the landlord said that it recognised the height of the shower base was not ideal for the resident. However, it said as this was a mutual exchange it would not replace this until the bathroom was due for replacement. It suggested the resident purchase a shower step. While this may have been a reasonable solution, we have seen not evidence it communicated this to the resident. The resident had informed the landlord that the height of the shower was dangerous for her son.
16. The resident noted in her escalation that the ceiling in her kitchen was bowing due to the leak. It would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the ceiling, ensure it was safe and confirm what, if any, repairs it needed to do. There is no evidence it did this.
17. On 17 April 2025 the resident called the landlord as the contractor had advised that it was sending someone to inspect where the leak was coming from. The resident was unhappy as this had been done twice before. While we acknowledge leaks can be complex and multiple inspections may be required, it is unclear from the evidence why the contractor needed to re-inspect, given follow on works had been agreed. It would have been reasonable to discuss this with the contractor, ensure it was necessary, and provide the resident with an explanation. This was particularly important, given the resident’s circumstances and the distress that her son experienced by strangers visiting the home. We have not seen it did this.
18. On 25 April 2025 internal emails said an occupational therapy referral was needed if the shower base was to be lowered. We note the resident had previously advised that her son would benefit from a bath due to his water sensory needs, and that the shower base height was unsuitable for him. We have not been provided with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, however, we consider it reasonable that the landlord would have advised the resident how she could access support from occupational therapy, at the earliest opportunity. We have not seen evidence it did this at this time. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it did not follow its process for occupational therapy as quickly as it should have.
19. On 1 May 2025 the contractor visited and noted it had carried out a temporary repair. The landlord has not provided specific details of this repair; however, it was appropriate to consider a temporary repair while works were ongoing.
20. On 19 May 2025 repairs notes said that a new bathroom was needed due to multiple issues and that the kitchen ceiling was bowing. We would expect the landlord to consider this report and confirm what actions it needed to take. We have not seen that it did this.
21. On 27 May 2025 the resident chased the permanent works. She said a temporary seal had been placed on the shower. On 29 May 2025 she contacted the landlord to advise that she was having to use multiple towels on the floor in the bathroom to stop water coming through. She said her son had slipped on tiles in the bathroom floor and cut his hand. Due to this, she felt it was no longer safe to use the shower, and she was having to use taxis to get to her friends and family’s property to use their shower. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment. We have not seen it did this.
22. On 6 June 2025 the landlord noted that it had raised a repair on 29 May 2025 but it the contractors had not received it. We acknowledge that this was a system error, however it contributed to a further short delay.
23. On 17 June 2025 internal emails said it had visited the resident, and she was refusing for the landlord to put in the same shower tray. This was because it was too high, and the non-slip surface had worn out. We have not seen the aids and adaptations policy, however the landlord has said in its complaints responses that it needed an occupational therapy referral to make any replacements to the shower. This may have been reasonable in relation to lowering the height of the shower. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there was any risk in relation to the shower’s nonslip surface being worn out and whether there was any further support it could offer the resident in regard to this. We have not seen that the landlord did this.
24. On 18 June 2025 the resident called for an update. The resident said no one was providing information on what was happening. We have seen that the resident made multiple calls to the landlord while the repair was outstanding, but the landlord was not providing detailed updates regarding the repair. We consider this is likely to have been distressing, given the resident’s circumstances.
25. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 June 2025 to apologise for the service. It also called on 26 June 2025 and spoke with the resident who reiterated her concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the resident.
26. In internal emails dated 30 June 2025 the landlord noted that the resident was refusing works as the landlord was not going to lower the shower, and because the landlord wanted to put vinyl over cracked tiles which she was concerned was unsafe The landlord spoke with the resident on the same day to encourage her to allow the repairs to go ahead while the occupational therapy referral was going through. This was an appropriate action and resulted in the resident agreeing to the repairs..
27. On 15 July 2025 the landlord emailed the resident and advised it would complete the works on 30 July 2025. We have not seen records of this repair and the resident has advised the works were not completed. We have seen records that the resident continued to chase the repairs after this date.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the service and the delays to the shower repair. It also said there had been delays in following the process for an occupational therapy referral. It offered compensation as follows:
    1. £410.00 in recognition of delays to repair
    2. £60.00 Failure to follow process and policy
    3. £15.00. Repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues
    4. £15.00. Resident having to repeatedly chase
    5. £15.00. Failure to respond to resident
    6. £15.00 Miscommunication/incorrect information provided
    7. £100.00 Inconvenience, time and trouble
29. We recognise that the landlord has offered compensation for the leak and acknowledged some failings. However, we note the issue remained outstanding for several more months after the stage 2 response. The landlord has not demonstrated that it provided reasonable support to the resident or that it understood the severity of the impact the outstanding repair had on her and her son. We also consider the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to support that the landlord addressed the residents’ concerns that she could not use the shower. The landlord has not considered risk when the resident advised it that there had been injury to a child. It did not update the resident regularly and the shower repairs were significantly delayed. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord has responded to the bowing kitchen ceiling. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak from the shower and associated repairs.
30. We have awarded a further £250 for the additional delay to the resident, and the failure to recognise the impact on a vulnerable resident and offer relevant support. The amount awarded, including the landlord’s offer, is £880 which is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a significant impact and significant delays.
31. We have also made an order for the landlord to review the case in line with its compensation policy regarding the loss of washing facilities. The policy says it will award 25% of rent where there is no available bath or shower. The landlord should consider whether this is applicable for the resident.

32. The landlord logged the complaint on 12 March 2025. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It acknowledged the complaint on 18 March 2025, which was within the timescales.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It responded in 28 working days. We note that it requested an extension on 1 April 2025. In the stage 2 response the landlord advised it had followed process by providing the extension letter, however, it failed to provide the resident an adequate explanation as to why it needed the extension.
34. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge any escalation within 5 working days. It took 7 working days to send the acknowledgement which is slightly outside the timescales. However, we do not consider this delay to be significant.
35. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It took 64 working days. The landlord provided 2 extension letters to the resident. We note our code says that stage 2 extensions should not be more than 20 working days. The landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 process that it did not follow the complaint handling code.
36. The landlord has offered £165 compensation for the delays in its complaint handling code. We consider this to be reasonable in line with our remedy’s guidance for shorter delays.

Learning

37. The resident had made the landlord aware that her child was vulnerable. We have seen a lack of support and consideration for the resident’s circumstances. We would recommend the landlord consider this and whether there is any learning it can take to ensure vulnerable residents are supported during complex repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord has kept good records.

Communication

39. The resident had to chase the landlord several times. There was a lack of ownership of the repair, and we would encourage landlord’s to be proactive in updating residents when there are significant delays.