Southern Housing (202512495)

Decision
Case ID	202512495
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat within a purpose-built block. At the time of the events complained about she lived with her 2 children, one of whom was disabled and the other a newborn baby. The landlord is the freeholder and there is a management company for the wider estate. She complained the landlord did not take sufficient action to resolve a leak into the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak into the property and the associated repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report of the leak and associated repairs.
There was service failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that:

The landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs

There was a delay of around 2 weeks in the landlord raising the incident with the managing agent appointed by the management company. It unreasonably told the resident she was responsible for liaising with their contractor. Though it later took action to make sure they completed the repairs and reimbursed her, it did not keep her updated about the action it was taking to ensure they carried this out. It also failed to consider the household vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

There was a delay in the landlord responding at stage 1 of its complaint process and in it carrying out the actions it agreed in this. It also provided inaccurate information in its responses about its role as the freeholder for the block.

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, in relation to both its handling of the repairs and her associated complaint. 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.	No later than 14 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £200 (inclusive of the £80 it previously offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its communication with the resident regarding the leak. The £150 it previously offered for its complaint handling in its final complaint response (if it has not already done so). This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 January 2026
3	Action order The landlord must write to the resident and: Confirm that it is the freeholder for the building. Explain its relationship with the managing company/managing agent in relation to the block of flats she resides in. Provide guidance about who she should contact if work the management company are responsible for affects the property. It must describe what role it would have in managing and putting right these issues. The landlord must provide evidence it has provided this information to the resident by the due date.	No later than 14 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that: a contractor drilled into a pipe whilst carrying out cladding work to the building exterior. This had caused a leak into her daughter’s bedroom and she was unhappy with its communication with her about repairs. it had told her to contact the contractor directly to arrange repairs and she considered it should be doing this her daughter needed to move out to temporary accommodation for medical reasons due to the leak. She also said she had recently experienced a bereavement and the landlord’s handling of the situation was adding to her distress
20 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. it advised her the management company for the building, and its contractor, was responsible for the cladding work so it had not been aware of this work before she reported the leak it said the management company’s contractor was responsible for the leak, and resulting damage, so it was correct for them to liaise with her. She should direct claims for damages or reimbursement to them it said there was no record she told it her daughter’s bedroom was unusable before her complaint. It reiterated any costs should be claimed back from the contractor it accepted it had delayed calling her back and providing information when she first reported the leak. It offered her £80 as compensation it acknowledged she had asked to be moved permanently and said its management team would contact her to discuss this
28 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. she was unhappy about the lack of support from the landlord following the leak. She reiterated she did not consider it reasonable for her to have to liaise with the contractor directly she complained it had not called her back in relation to her initial complaint and had delayed responding she said she wanted it to apologise, suspend her rent whilst the property had been uninhabitable, complete the repairs and provide her with additional compensation
13 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. it had reviewed its stage 1 response and was satisfied it was correct. It said the building management company was not appointed by it it described its role was to represent her to the management company to ensure they took appropriate action. It said they had provided her with temporary housing, completed repairs and offered compensation for damage. As such it said it considered they took appropriate responsibility it accepted that there were delays in responding to her initial complaint and in acting on the remedy it offered in the stage 1 response. It increased the total compensation offered to £230
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She told us the repairs had been resolved and acknowledged the contractor had reimbursed her. However, she wanted the landlord to show accountability for what happened and to provide additional compensation.

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 handling of reports of leaks into the property and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us she has several ongoing problems with the landlord’s communication with her. This includes its response to a water outage in September 2025 and her application for a management move. We have not seen evidence these complaints have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not comment on these in our investigation. If she completes its 2-stage complaints procedure and remains dissatisfied with its response, she can bring these to us to consider.

What we have investigated

The landlord told us it is the freeholder for the block where the resident’s flat is located, as well as the wider estate. The blocks form a continuous structure. It provided a copy of the head lease for several blocks of the building where it and the management company were parties to the lease. It described, prior to the events complained about, the management company was carrying out fire remediation work to the blocks specified in the head lease. The management company argued, as the terms of the head lease were unclear, they considered the remedial work should include the exterior of the other blocks as these were part of the same structure. The landlord said it accepted this and gave the management company permission to carry out cladding to the other blocks for which it was the freeholder.
On 15 January 2025 the resident phoned the landlord’s out of hours line to report a leak in her daughter’s bedroom. It attended that night and recorded the leak was likely caused by the cladding contractor drilling into a pipe. It said it was not able to resolve it as part of the attendance but the leak was contained. It recorded that a member of the cladding contractor’s staff was on site and agreed they would follow-up work to resolve the leak the next working day. The resident phoned the landlord again around 40 minutes later to report the leak had become worse. It attended again that night to make safe the leak and electrics. This was in line with its repair policy which says it will respond and make safe any emergency repairs within 6 hours of being reported.
On the morning of 16 January 2025, the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service saying the electricity for the property had tripped. Though it recorded this repair request was completed on the same day there are no records of what action it took in response to this. The resident told us the electrics in the property were not fully working for several days.
The landlord stated internally on 16 January 2025 that the cladding contractor was not one it employed and would need to contact the management agent for the building (which was appointed by the management company). Its understanding was not entirely accurate, as set out above it had given them permission to do the work. It is of concern it was not aware of the cladding work taking place or of the contractor who was doing this on their behalf. From the available records there is no evidence it contacted the management agent at the time. In its later call on 6 February 2025 with them it recorded they were unaware of the incident and would discuss it with its cladding team.
The landlord recorded on 16 January 2025 the resident said she was unhappy she had been told to chase up the contractor herself to resolve the issue. She described that she had a daughter with autism and newborn baby in the property as well as having recently experienced a bereavement. We have not seen any evidence of its communication with her following 16 January 2025 until her complaint on 30 January 2025.
In its responses to the complaint, the landlord stated as it had no knowledge of the cladding work it was not liable for the damage caused by the contractor so it was correct to ask her to liaise with them. This was not a reasonable position for it to take. It had a contractual arrangement with the management company ultimately responsible for the cladding work and had given them permission to do this. As such, it should have taken action to ensure any damage caused by this work was put right. The resident’s tenancy is with the landlord and she had no direct relationship with any contractor or managing agent.
The landlord raised a repair on 3 February 2025 that the resident had reported heavy damp in her daughter’s bedroom. It carried out a damp and mould survey on 17 February 2025. This was in line with its standard operating procedure for damp and mould which said it should inspect the property within 10 working days. The inspection found there were no issues with damp and mould across the property and it was safe for habitation.
Following the landlord’s email on 6 February 2025 the management agent confirmed to it that, as of 25 February 2025, their contractor had completed repairs to redecorate both rooms damaged by the leak and provided dehumidifiers. They also confirmed their contractor had received details of the personal belongings the resident said needed replacement and would agree to reimburse her for these and her expenses for temporary housing. From this we saw it took reasonable measures at this time to ensure the management agent took action to put things right for her.
The resident said as part of her complaint she considered the landlord should have refunded her rent whilst the property was unusable. Its replacement homes policy confirms if it needs to move a resident temporarily, they will usually be required to pay rent whilst they are in temporary accommodation. We have not seen any evidence the property was uninhabitable, and the management agent’s contractor agreed to pay for expenses due to her daughter moving out of the property temporarily.
In terms of the impact on the resident as part of the landlord’s responses it accepted it had delayed providing her with information following her initial call on 16 January 2025. It apologised and offered her £80 compensation. There is little evidence the landlord communicated with her, over the 6 weeks until the repairs were completed, to keep her updated about the action it took to get the management agent to put things right. Its position for the first 2 weeks that she was responsible for liaising with the contractor also likely added to her distress.. There is no indication it recognised this in its response. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the level of detriment caused to her and have ordered it to take further action to put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained to the landlord by phone on 30 January 2025. It acknowledged this on 6 February 2025, in line with the timescales of its policies and the Code.
As part of the acknowledgment on 6 February 2025 the landlord said it had attempted to phone the resident that day to discuss her complaint. She told us she was unhappy it did not attempt to phone her again. We note she sent it an email the following day saying she was unavailable due to a bereavement and declined to provide any further information about her complaint until 15 February 2025. In this context the landlord’s decision not to phone the resident again was reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 February 2025 providing additional information about her complaint and further points she wanted it to respond to. It replied on 20 February 2025 that it would need to extend its response until 6 March 2025 in light of the new points she had raised. This was in line with the Code which allows for extensions of 10 working days when communicated to the resident.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 20 March 2025, 30 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It did advise the resident on 7 March 2025 it would require a further extension until 20 March 2025 to respond fully. However, this was not consistent with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 4 April 2025 which was in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 May 2025, 25 working days after its acknowledgement. It had advised the resident on 7 March 2025 it would need an extension until that time. As such, its actions were in line with its policies and the Code.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s responses it said in its stage 1 response it had no knowledge of the cladding work. It added in its stage 2 response the managing agent was “appointed by the freeholder (the person who owns the building) which means they do not have to update Southern Housing about works they are doing”. As set out previously it later confirmed to us that it is the freeholder for the building and had given the managing company, which appointed the managing agent, permission to do the cladding work. Therefore, it did not consider all the relevant information and evidence before it provided its responses as it was required to do in line with the Code.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response, it recognised that its stage 1 response had been delayed and it did not acknowledge the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities. It also recognised that it had delayed contacting her about her options to move permanently from the property, which it had agreed to do in its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered a total of £150 for its handling of her complaint. We consider the amount of financial remedy offered was in line with our remedies guidance. However, it has not acknowledged the inaccurate information in its responses to fully put right its failings. As such we have ordered it to apologise for this failing and provide further information to clarify this.

Learning

A significant issue in this complaint was the landlord’s lack of clarity about its role as the freeholder and its relationship with the management company. It was unaware that it had given the management company (and by extension its managing agent and their contractors) permission to do the work complained about. Though the landlord eventually clarified this issue there were missed opportunities for it to investigate this as part of its complaint responses. It should ensure its staff have access to suitable information about its property portfolio to respond to complaints.
The resident said the landlord did not visit the property following the completion of repairs. It confirmed to us it did not post-inspect the work. She told us there have not been any ongoing issues with damp following the repairs, as a result we do not consider there is a need for us to order it to inspect as a result of our findings. However, we consider it should have done so to confirm for its own records the management company had resolved the issue. It should consider doing so if a similar incident occurs in another property it owns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure that it creates clear records to show what actions or repairs it completes as part of an attendance. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for its actions to put things right and any relevant decisions.

Communication

As set out previously, the landlord’s communication with the resident about the leak was poor with little evidence it kept her updated about what it was doing. It should ensure that, even where a third party is responsible for completing a repair, it keeps residents informed of any action it is taking to resolve the issue.