Southern Housing (202516755)

Decision
Case ID	202516755
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat which needed a replacement kitchen and damp and mould works. He has several disabilities which affect his physical health. The landlord is aware of these. In September 2023, he moved to temporary accommodation so the landlord could complete works. He reported problems with the lift breaking and a leak from the ceiling of his temporary property. In 2024, he complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs at both properties and the suitability of the temporary property.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Major works to the resident’s permanent home and communal areas.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
   3. Repairs to the resident’s temporary accommodation.
   4. The resident’s concerns about its decision to move the boiler in his permanent property.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of major works to the resident’s permanent home and communal areas.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s temporary accommodation.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its decision to move the boiler in his permanent property.
   5. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The handling of major works to the resident’s permanent home and communal areas

4. There were delays in the landlord fully completing works to the resident’s permanent property. It acknowledged these in its complaint response but did not offer proportionate remedy to put things right.

The handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his temporary accommodation

5. The landlord did not give due regard to the resident’s disabilities and medical needs in relation to his concerns. It did not consider reasonable adjustments and confirmed this in correspondence to us. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

The handling of repairs to the resident’s temporary accommodation

6. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about repairs. There were delays in completing repairs to a leak and its compensation offer was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

The handling of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s decision to move the boiler

7. The landlord explained the health and safety aspect of the boiler relocation well and why it would be unsafe to place it in the bathroom.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. There were delays in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling. However, it appropriately communicated the reasons for this and offered proportionate compensation.

 

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 senior 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 30 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,623.33 made up as follows: £123.33 offered in its complaint responses for service failures in its handling of major works £800 offered in its stage 2 response towards the cost of replacement white goods £500 added payment for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to major works £420.83 offered in its stage 2 response for inconvenience relating to the suitability of his temporary accommodation £179.17 added payment for distress and inconvenience relating to the suitability of his temporary accommodation £400 offered in its stage 2 response for inconvenience related to temporary accommodation repairs £200 added payment for time and trouble related to temporary accommodation repairs This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not used to offset any rent arrears where they may exist. 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 30 March 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a joint inspection of the permanent property with him and its surveyor. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date and that it gives due regard to the resident’s medical needs.   The inspection must be completed with a view to returning the resident to the property and it must raise any additional required works within 2 weeks of the inspection.   It must provide us and the resident with the likely timescales to commence and complete any identified works.	No later than   30 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord visits the resident’s storage unit with him to confirm whether his blinds are present. If they are not, we recommend the landlord pay for replacement blinds.
We recommend the landlord pay the resident its £70.83 compensation offer for complaint handling failures if it has not done so already. The offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and we make the reasonable redress finding on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs to his permanent and temporary accommodation. He said his temporary accommodation was unsuitable for his needs. He felt it had ignored his disabilities. He was concerned about his safety due to the new location of the boiler in his permanent home. He asked it to replace missing items, confirm if it could move the boiler and provide copies of all relevant legal documentation for works and repairs.
12 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
28 August to 24 September 2024	The landlord extended its stage 1 response timescale 3 times between these dates. It told the resident each time and said this was due to the complexity of his complaint. It said it needed more time to investigate.
1 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said he signed an agreement confirming he was satisfied with the temporary property and agreed to move in. It said he had not provided an occupational therapy assessment which would detail his needs. It was continuing to resolve outstanding repairs at the temporary property. It said when the lift broke, it moved him to a hotel for 2 weeks. It explained he had asked it to move the boiler and explained why it would be unsafe in the bathroom. It provided safety reassurance. It gave an update on major works at his permanent home and said it was safe for him to return to within 14 days. It offered £875 compensation for delays in repairs and complaint handling, inconvenience and failure to follow policy and process.
23 October 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He felt the landlord had displayed a “concerning lack of empathy and consideration” for his ongoing trauma following the death of his mother. He said it moved him to temporary accommodation without fully understanding his needs and had not completed an occupational therapy assessment. He said a persistent leak in the temporary property had been unresolved for over a year. He was still concerned about the boiler relocation and a communal leak outside his permanent property. He raised concerns about the completed works and said his white goods were now tripping the electrics. He asked it to replace the white goods and reconsider its compensation offer.
30 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation.
26 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for providing unclear information about occupational therapy assessments in its stage 1 response. It said all it completed repairs to the communal leak in October 2024 but was awaiting drying out to finish remedial works. It said the leak had no direct effect on his property. It said it completed works to install window box extensions and asked him to check the storage unit for his blinds. It repeated its stage 1 response about the suitability of temporary accommodation and the location of the boiler. It agreed it could have better managed his expectations from the start of the works and apologised for the time taken to resolve issues and complete repairs. It identified 6 service failures and increased its compensation offer to £1,775. This included an added £800 towards the cost of new white goods.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s approach to repairs at his permanent property and asked us to investigate. He is seeking increased compensation to cover the cost of purchasing and fitting white goods and to visit his property with the landlord so he can return.

 

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.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident said the situation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – only the courts can do this. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
11. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. They should ensure they provide the opportunity for residents to challenge the decisions that affect them through the internal complaints process.

What we did investigate

Complaint	The handling of major works to the permanent home and communal areas
Finding	Maladministration

12. The landlord raised kitchen replacement and damp, and mould works in July 2023. It moved the resident to temporary accommodation in September 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale for planned works. However, industry standard is approximately 90 days.
13. The landlord’s contractor completed the major planned works on 30 November 2023. It then raised electrical upgrade works and works to renew carpets with a target of 15 January and 2 February 2024 respectively. It recorded completion of all works on 24 January 2024. It completed all works within industry standard timescales.
14. Following notification of the completed works, the resident asked the landlord if he could meet it to view the property ahead of moving back in. This request was in line with the landlord’s replacement homes procedure which says 10 working days before a resident it due to move home, it will agree a date for a joint inspection of the home with the tenant and its surveyor. He said he needed to arrange broadband before he could return as he needed a connection for medical equipment relating to his epilepsy. He raised concerns about mould in the carpets and dust from works and asked it to check the remaining carpets first.
15. In an email to the resident in late January 2024, the landlord said it needed to complete some snagging works. It said it would have the green light to move him back to the property once it completed these. It is therefore unclear why it told him earlier his property was ready for his return. This information may have led to confusion and a lack of confidence in the landlord’s assessment of property readiness for the resident.
16. In early February 2024, the landlord again told the resident it would be looking to move him back to the property in 2 weeks. The resident responded and again said he first needed to arrange a date with his broadband providers for medical purposes. He explained his health conditions and again asked to visit the property with the landlord ahead of returning. It did not respond to this request.
17. In April 2024, the landlord’s contractor completed a deep clean of the property. The landlord inspected and found contractors did not complete this to an adequate standard. It found they had not installed a splashback in the kitchen as asked. In May 2025, it found the resident’s white goods were tripping the kitchen electrics after the completed upgrade. It raised a request for an electrical system test. We have not seen evidence of when it completed the test.
18. The resident included the landlord’s handling of major works in his complaint. He raised concerns about missing or damaged belongings, including white goods, blinds and windowsills. He was concerned about the condition of the windows and persistent damp and mould. Following receipt of his complaint, the landlord raised works to install plastic trim around all windows internally. It completed these works on 10 September 2024 and noted the property was now ready for the resident to return to.
19. On 30 September 2024, the resident told the landlord he was concerned about moving back to his property due to an ongoing communal leak. He felt the landlord should turn off the water supply until it found the source of the leak. He also said he could not return without resolution for his broken white goods and missing blinds and windowsills.
20. In its complaint response, the landlord said it completed works to the windows and explained why it had removed the windowsills. After the resident raised concerns about this, it completed works to fit box extensions to the affected windows. It explained the electrical rewiring was necessary, but this meant his white goods were no longer compatible. It apologised for the inconvenience but said these were his responsibility to replace. It acknowledged the ongoing communal leak and said this was not affecting his property. However, it agreed it needed to complete works which would start ‘shortly’.
21. The landlord gave the resident 14 days from the date of its stage 1 response to return to his permanent address. It acknowledged excessive delays in completing works to his permanent property. It offered £25 for not responding to timescales and £15 for failure to follow policy and process, totalling £40. Its offer was not in line with its compensation policy or our remedies guidance.
22. In his complaint escalation, the resident asked the landlord to replace his white goods due to the financial burden of having to replace his fridge, washing machine, and dishwasher. He noted poor workmanship to the windowsills and paintwork. He felt its stage 1 response was ‘cold’ and lacked acknowledgement of his emotional distress.
23. In an email to the landlord on 15 November 2024, the resident raised concerns about the standard of works in his property. He asked for the property to be fully habitable before he returned, including new white goods, blinds and proper functioning of his broadband.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided an update on completion of communal works in October 2024. It said the leak had no direct effect on the resident’s property. It asked him to check the storage unit for his blinds as it had no signed disclaimer from him for them. It offered £800 towards replacement of his white goods. It offered an added £83.33 for 4 service failures, including failure to follow process, repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues, repeat failures to reply to him and failure to use his preferred contact method. This took its total offer across both response to £923.33.
25. In its response, the landlord apologised for the time taken to complete repairs. It said the resident’s property was ready for his return. Overall, its offer towards replacement white goods was fair. However, it did not offer proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by having to chase for updates.
26. The resident is currently still living in temporary accommodation. He told us he is keen to move back to his permanent address but cannot afford to buy and pay for fitting of new white goods. It is unclear whether his blinds are in the storage unit or whether the landlord’s contractor disposed of them during works. As such, we are unable to determine whether the landlord should compensate for this. We will recommend the landlord visit the storage unit with the resident and pay the cost of replacement blinds if they are not in situ at the unit.
27. In correspondence to us, the landlord said the resident refused to return to his property until it resolved outstanding issues. The evidence provided supports this. However, it is clear the resident made fair requests to visit the property and asked for reassurance around his disabilities and the state of the property itself. The landlord did not give due regard to his medical concerns, nor did it offer sufficient compensation for its failures. As such, we find maladministration and order the landlord to pay an added £500 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
28. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We will also order the landlord to complete a full property inspection with the resident to reassure him of the readiness of his property with a view to return him to the property as soon as possible.

Complaint	The handling of concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation
Finding	Maladministration

29. In November 2023, the resident reported problems with the communal lift at his temporary property. He said the lift had only worked for a week since he moved in. The lift had broken previously, causing a delay to him moving in. This led to a 2-week hotel stay. He said the ongoing lift problems were causing him difficulty with his disabilities as the property was on the third floor.
30. The landlord responded and explained the delays in repairing the lift were due to sourcing parts. As it had previously funded a hotel stay due to the lift issue, it had awareness of his medical needs. However, there is no evidence it further considered whether the property was suitable for his needs in the event it could not repair the lift.
31. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident inspected the temporary property with it on 9 August 2023 and did not raise any concerns at the time. Nor did he raise concerns when signing the temporary tenancy agreement. It said he did not have an occupational therapy assessment report which would provide detail on his specific housing needs. It said the lift repair was delayed due to difficulty sourcing parts.
32. In February 2025, the resident told us his former housing officer verbally asked him to move to the property as a favour to them. They told him he would be back in his permanent property within 2 months. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to assess any conversation which has neither party has documented.
33. The landlord’s complaint response was based upon the evidence available to it. It did not offer any advice to the resident about how to get an occupational therapy assessment. However, it said his permanent property was ready for him to return to and said there was no reason for him to remain at the temporary property with the issues he was facing. It gave him 14 days to move back to the permanent property but also mentioned the ongoing communal leaks. It said it would complete works to these the following week but that these had not affected his property.
34. In its response, the landlord offered £800 compensation for inconvenience as the resident had been out of his home for a year with the difficulties mentioned. These included repairs which we will assess later in this report. As such, we will consider £400 of this offer to relate directly to his concerns about the suitability of the property. This amount was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
35. In his escalation request, the resident said the landlord had breached our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by moving him without fully understanding his needs. He said it was aware of his medical conditions and had not conducted an occupational assessment report. If it had more clearly explained the occupational therapy assessment process at stage 1, it may have avoided a further complaint about his concerns.
36. The landlord offered no further information in its stage 2 response. It confirmed its stage 1 position and said it was unable to find the temporary property was unsuitable for the resident’s needs at the time he moved in. However, it offered no suggestion moving forward on whether it would assess the suitability going forward as it further noted his permanent home was ready for him to return to. It acknowledged it could have provided him with more information about the occupational therapy service in its stage 1 response.
37. The landlord offered an added £20.83 compensation at stage 2 for its failure to provide incorrect information. This brought its total offer to £420.83. This offer was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance as previously mentioned.
38. However, the landlord has since told us its provision of a property on the third floor with a broken lift was an oversight. It said this breached the expectation for it to make reasonable adjustments under its policy and the Code. There is no evidence it communicated this to the resident. Doing so would have been good practice, and it could have gone some way towards repairing the landlord and tenant relationship.
39. As mentioned in our published special report about the landlord in May 2024, the landlord has updated its reasonable adjustments policy and provided staff training since the issues in this case. However, there is no evidence it considered moving the resident to a more suitable property when he initially reported problems with the lift in 2023. It explained the delay in repairing the lift but did not consider reasonable adjustments or how this would be affecting him and his disabilities in the meantime.
40. Despite the resident’s permanent property being ready for him to return to at the time of the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its earlier shortcomings and instead focused on the situation at the time. Its compensation offer did not reflect this, and its responses lacked empathy toward his circumstances. As such, we find maladministration.
41. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay its earlier £420.83 compensation offer, along with an added £179.17 for distress and inconvenience, bringing the total to £600. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a landlord not acknowledging its failings.

Complaint	The handling of repairs to temporary accommodation
Finding	Maladministration

42. The resident reported a leak through 2 ceilings of his temporary accommodation on 21 September 2023. The landlord raised emergency works which have a response time of 6 hours for making safe works under its repairs policy. The policy says it will then arrange follow-on works to fully complete repairs. We have not seen evidence that it attended within its emergency policy timescales.
43. The landlord marked works as complete on 26 September 2023 and again on 9 October 2023. Its repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs “as quickly as possible.” The industry standard timescale for completing routine repairs is approximately 20 working days. While the landlord did not complete emergency works within policy timescales, it did complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
44. In November 2023, the resident continued to report issues with the bedroom ceiling leak and a smell from the bathroom which the landlord had not addressed. There is no evidence the landlord raised works or attended to investigate either reported problem.
45. In May 2024, the resident reported a roof leak which caused the bedroom ceiling to cave in. The landlord raised emergency works and attended within 2 working days. It again missed its 6-hour emergency repair timescale.
46. In his complaint, the resident said the landlord took no action following his report of water coming through the ceilings. After receiving his complaint, the landlord raised urgent routine works to inspect the roof. It noted this needed a specialist contractor. The contractors said they required scaffolding before they could fully access the roof. There is no evidence the landlord worked to arrange this.
47. The resident reported further leaking into the property in September 2024. The contractors worked with the resident to arrange an appointment around his medical appointments. In late September 2024, he said nobody had visited to help him clean debris from the leak.
48. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was continuing to work to resolve outstanding leak repairs. It said his permanent property was ready for him to return to. It offered £800 compensation, £400 of which we can attribute to the inconvenience of ongoing leaks. Its response did not acknowledge earlier repair delays, and its compensation offer did not account for the earlier missed opportunities to investigate and stop the leaks.
49. In his complaint escalation, the resident said the persistent leak had been ongoing for over a year. In a follow-up email, he said he had stayed with friends during heavy rainfall to avoid this. In November 2024, the landlord raised works to investigate the roof prior to the ceiling collapsing. It attended within emergency timescales to complete make safe works ahead of completing roof repairs. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 2 response.
50. While landlord confirmed the resident’s permanent property was ready for him to move back to in September 2024, it had failed to properly resolve leaks in the temporary accommodation one year earlier. This supported his concerns about the suitability of the temporary property and the impact of this on his health. In communication to us, the landlord acknowledged poor communication and information management in relation to repairs. It said this forced the resident to repeatedly chase updates. It said there was substandard management of his temporary property in relation to damp, mould, and a persistent leak. There is no evidence it communicated this to him.
51. As such, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to temporary accommodation. Its compensation offer did not reflect the delay or the impact on the resident. We have ordered it to apologise and pay the £400 compensation it offered at stage 1, along with an added £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing it for updates. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of concerns about moving the boiler
Finding	No maladministration

52. In his complaint, the resident said the new location of the boiler (living room) was inconvenient as he could no longer use his dining area. He raised concerns about the possibility of a risk from carbon monoxide.
53. The landlord investigated this. Its surveyor said the boiler was originally in the bedroom of the property. It said the resident asked if it could move the boiler which it agreed to. The surveyor and contractor told him where they could place the boiler and said the resident agreed to the location. There is no evidence of this conversation, so we are unable to determine what the landlord and resident agreed.
54. The surveyor provided a full explanation of why it would be unsafe to install the boiler in the bathroom. This was because it would cause the flue to extract carbon monoxide onto a covered pathway. It explained this to him in its stage 1 response. It said the living room installation followed safety guidelines and there would therefore be minimal risk to him. This was a fair response, and it tried to reduce his concerns by giving a full explanation.
55. In his complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord violated our Code by not ensuring his health and safety. The section quoted was not relevant to these concerns. However, it acted in line with the Code at both complaint stages by addressing his concerns and providing clear reasons for its decisions.
56. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns related to one of his health conditions, sarcoidosis, which affects his lungs. It was good practice for it to acknowledge this and show understanding. However, it had already explained its decision at stage 1. This was fair and as such, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the move of the boiler.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

57. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days. At both stages, it can extend its response time by a further 10 or 20 working days respectively if needed. Its policy is compliant with the Code.
58. The landlord extended its stage 1 response time 3 times. On each occasion it emailed the resident to explain it needed the extension due to the complexity of the complaint. The Code says any extension at stage 1 must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. The landlord told the resident it needed to extend its response time for further investigation due to the complexity of his complaint. We can see it was investigating internally and with its contractors throughout the extension periods.
59. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the complaint handling delays. There were no further delays at stage 2. As such, it repeated its earlier £50 offer and included an added £20.83 for its complaint handling failures, totalling £70.83. This is in line with its compensation policy. It is also in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure relating to delays in getting matters resolved.
60. Overall, the landlord took extensive time to respond to the resident at stage 1. However, its responses at both stages were thorough and covered all points he raised. It offered fair compensation in line with our dispute resolution principles, remedies guidance, and its own policy. As such, we find it offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Learning

61. Since this case and our published special report, the landlord has implemented several new policies. However, it may be able to take further learning about vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments from our published spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

62. There were no major issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case, which enabled us to complete a full and thorough investigation.

Communication

63. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout this complaint. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance may include some useful learning for the landlord on communication and trust.