Southern Housing (202531460)

Background

1. The resident initially complained to the landlord about paint peeling from the walls in the bathroom. She later added that the bathroom had various issues following a poor installation 2 years previously. She also complained about antisocial behaviour and closed-circuit television (CCTV) provision.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. Repairs to a bathroom.
   2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. A request for a managed move.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. repairs to the bathroom
   2. ASB.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a managed move.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Bathroom

6. There were delays of over a year in the landlord completing identified work to the bathroom. This was not in line with its repairs policy. We have seen no evidence that it updated the resident about the reasons for the delays. Although it acknowledged some failures and offered compensation at stage 1, this was insufficient to remedy the situation. Repairs remained outstanding at the time of the final response, resulting in the resident experiencing a prolonged period of disruption, distress, and inconvenience.

ASB

7. We have seen no evidence that the landlord used its good neighbourhood management procedure to help resolve the noise issue from the neighbour above. It also failed to tell the resident why it was not taking further action regarding the other ASB incidents. It was a positive step to carry out an audit but it should have considered other methods when this proved ineffective.

Management move

8. The landlord gave reasons for declining a managed move and signposted the resident to other housing options. This was in line with its procedure.

Complaint

9. There were delays in the complaint handling process but the landlord contacted the resident to extend the timeframe and offered compensation to reflect this. However, it also failed to follow a proposed remedy through to completion.

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.

10. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out. Taking this and the availability and reliability of evidence into account, it is not possible for us to investigate the installation of the bathroom 2 years prior to the complaint. Therefore this assessment has focussed on the period from October 2024 onwards.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete most routine repairs within 20 working days. Where this is not possible it says it will keep residents informed about the reasons for the delay.
12. There is evidence that on 8 October 2024 the resident reported that paint and plaster were peeling from the walls after a leak in the bathroom. She also asked the landlord to replace silicone around the floor in the bathroom on 5 January 2025. However, when she received no response to her requests, she took time and trouble chasing it up via email.
13. On 4 February 2025 the resident told the landlord that she had taken time off work for the appointment to reseal around the floor but no-one had attended. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment and rebooked it.
14. On 15 May 2025 an operative sanded the bathroom walls and painted them with a mist coat. However, this was not effective and the resident took further time and trouble making a complaint. Following this the landlord inspected the bathroom on 25 June 2025 and identified several jobs that needed to be completed.
15. We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord requested a quotation for the identified work until 19 August 2025. This further delay in requesting a quote caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord received the quote on 8 December 2025 and approved it on 5 January 2026. The resident asked the contractor to start the job on 16 March 2026.
16. The landlord offered £275 compensation for this element of the complaint. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failures where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. In ordering £500 compensation, we have considered the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused over a prolonged period.

17. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will follow its good neighbourhood management procedure (GNMP) for new and emerging issues where the nuisance may not be intentional. If the report relates to noise and it decides to use the GNMP this may include:
    1. neighbours signing a good neighbour agreement
    2. completing a home visit to help determine acceptable levels of noise between the properties
    3. exploring simple practical measures to reduce the impact of noise.
18. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord about her elderly neighbour playing the television at an excessive volume on 25 January 2025. The landlord responded on 4 February 2025. It said that it had spoken to the neighbour and suggested that they use wireless headphones but this was dismissed. It said that the resident should contact the local authority if the problem continued. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered using the GNMP to manage the situation. This left the resident feeling unsupported and cost her time and trouble logging a complaint.
19. We understand that the landlord took further action after the complaints process and the issue is now resolved.
20. The resident also complained about general ASB within the block. However, the landlord has advised us that she did not report these issues prior to her complaint. The landlord therefore did not need to cover these in its complaint response but it chose to do so.
21. During the complaints process the resident told the landlord about several incidents including those detailed in the complaint section above plus an incident of domestic abuse where the alleged perpetrator threatened the resident’s partner.
22. The landlord noted that most of the incidents were historic and that the resident did not wish to make a complaint about the domestic abuse incident. However, there is evidence in an email sent to the landlord on 26 August 2025 that indicates that the resident wanted to log the domestic abuse incident as ASB. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident why it was not taking any action. Had it done so it may have realised that she did want to log the domestic abuse incident. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to advise the resident how to report any future ASB incidents so it could deal with them in a timely manner. This communication failure meant that the resident was not kept informed and felt unsupported by the landlord.
23. The landlord decided to complete a tenancy audit to monitor the extent of the issue. This was an appropriate action to take. However, it noted that it only spoke to 2 residents from a large block. This was therefore not an effective method of deciding whether ASB was affecting many residents. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider other ways of investigating the situation but we have seen no evidence that it did so. This error meant that it missed an opportunity to discover the extent the issue.
24. The landlord offered no compensation for this element of the complaint. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £600 are appropriate when there is a failure that has adversely affected the resident but the landlord has failed to acknowledge the failing and has made no attempt to put things right. In ordering £300 compensation we have considered the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

25. The landlord’s management move procedure says that it may be able to offer a management move in limited circumstances. It says that it may offer this, subject to availability, if there is evidence of:
    1. domestic abuse
    2. witness protection
    3. ASB or severe harassment
    4. significant personal tragedy.
26. The procedure says it does not apply to moves for overcrowding, and low or medium risk neighbour disputes.
27. According to the procedure an officer can decide if the criteria is met and if this is the case a form does not need to be completed. The officer should signpost the resident to other moving options.
28. In this case the landlord advised the resident in the stage 1 complaint response that she was not eligible for a managed move and gave reasons for this which were in line with its procedure. It also offered some advice for other moving options.

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that any remedy proposed in a complaint response must be followed through to completion.
30. In this case, in the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it did not know if the CCTV cameras on the block were working but that it would inspect them to find out. The resident has told us that she is still not aware if the CCTV cameras are working. The landlord’s failure to follow this solution through to completion undermined the complaint handling process and means the resident’s question remains unanswered.
31. The landlord also offered to look at the CCTV footage for the last 28 days if she had any reports that she would like it to view. However, as it was not sure how to view the footage it is unclear how it would have completed this proposed action.
32. The Code also says that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In this case the landlord took 51 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. This cost the resident time and trouble chasing a response. However, the landlord told the resident why the response would be late and extended the timeframe and offered £50 compensation for this which is in line with our compensation guidance.
33. Our compensation guidance says that compensation of up to £100 is appropriate where there has been a complaint handling failure that has adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made an attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment. In ordering compensation of £100 we have considered the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

34. The landlord should review the complaint handling in this case to include considering whether it needed to include some elements of the complaint in its complaint responses. Delays may have been avoided had it not done so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. None identified.

Communication

36. The landlord should consider why it failed to keep the resident informed about the bathroom repairs and why it decided to take no action regarding the ASB reports.