Southern Housing (202533051)

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord to report his flat door was faulty. He had concerns about his safety due to this and following a fire that had taken place at the block of flats in 2023. The landlord acted to repair the door. However, the resident was unhappy as he felt it should replace this. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flat door.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flat door.
5. There was 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

6. The landlord’s response to try and repair the door first was in line with its repairs policy. However, it did not respond promptly to a potential fire safety risk which was not in line with its repairs policy. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not meet the timeframe for updating the resident its stage 2 response provided. Nor did it provide the resident reassurance that the door did not pose a safety risk.
7. The landlord’s stage 1 investigation incorrectly investigated the door to the block of flats, rather than the resident’s flat door. There were further delays in its stage 2 response. However, it recognised its failures, and its stage 2 offer of compensation reflected the detriment to the resident.

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.

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.

What we did not consider

8. The resident said he wanted the landlord to refund his rent for the time he was not living at the property. However, there is no record he raised this as part of his complaint. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this through its internal complaints process, it would not be fair for us to consider this.

9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it was considering the most effective repair to the resident’s door. We consider it reasonable to assess its actions after its final response, to the conclusion of the remedy it offered the resident.
10. The landlord’s repair records show it visited the resident’s property on 8 January 2024. It found the door lock was defective, which it needed to repair or replace. Its records show it inspected the door again on 2 May 2025. It reached the same conclusion about the door. However, its records do not show it completed either repair or updated the resident on its progress. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will address fire safety issues promptly to maintain a safe living environment.
11. After the resident raised his complaint the landlord’s records show its response to the issue incorrectly focussed on the communal door to the block of flats. This delayed it resolving the issue and its stage 1 response caused the resident confusion. Its stage 2 response acknowledged this, which was reasonable.
12. The landlord’s records show the resident told it on 2 July 2025 he was struggling to get in and out of his property, due to the door. He told it on 9 July 2025 he did not feel safe in the property. It visited his property to try to repair the door on the same day. It was unable to gain access to complete the repair and its records note there was no evidence it confirmed his availability. This caused a further delay and was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will confirm an appointment as soon as possible, and, where possible, at a time that suits the resident.
13. The landlord returned to the resident’s property on 16 July 2025 to complete repairs to the door. Its records note it needed to change the lock mechanism. It told the resident it needed to take the lock offsite to do this, and it would return in an hour. The resident said he was unable to wait at the property, and he wanted the door replacing. It was unable to complete the repair as a result.
14. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the safety of his door, following a fire at his block of flats. However, the landlord’s approach was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. This says it will consider replacing individual components if a repair would be ineffective. It was reasonable it reached its own conclusions on the action it needed to take to resolve the issue.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2025. He said it had told him it would be fitting a new door to his property. It discussed this internally and could find no record it had said this. We have also found no evidence that shows it had said it would replace the door at this point. However, it asked for its repairs team to assess if it needed to install a new door. This was reasonable.
16. The landlord discussed the matter internally again on 13 August 2025. It asked its fire safety team to investigate. This indicates it did not assess the door following its discussions on 17 July 2025. This was not reasonable and caused a further delay in resolving the issue.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it was reviewing the most effective repair to the door. It would update him on its plan for repairs by 1 September 2025. However, there is no record that it did this. The resident contacted it on 11 September 2025 to chase it for answers. This was not reasonable and indicates a lack of oversight from the landlord.
18. The landlord told us that it inspected the resident’s door again sometime in September 2025. While it could not find a record of its survey, it found the door was twisted and not closing tight into the frame. It did not consider the door posed an immediate risk to the resident. The resident told the landlord on 27 November 2025 that he had not been living at the property, due to safety concerns. However, there is no record that it told him it did not consider the door posed a risk. It should have considered clarifying this to reassure him given the resident’s concerns about his safety. This was not reasonable.
19. The landlord’s evidence does not show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to the issue. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it recognises repair issues have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with vulnerabilities. Given the resident’s concerns about safety led him to move out of the property, it should have considered what support it could have offered him.
20. The landlord added the resident’s property to its door replacement programme for 2025 to 2026. Its records show it contacted the resident on 16 February 2026 to arrange to install the door. He declined this due to other outstanding repair concerns he had. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2026. It said it would address these issues separately and it needed to install the door as a remedy to his complaint. It asked him to contact it to arrange this. This was reasonable and shows the landlord was taking steps to put things right.
21. The resident has told us that the landlord returned to fit the new door on or around 17 April 2026. However, he declined this as he wanted it to inspect his current door again. The evidence shows the landlord has taken steps to provide the resident with the outcome he wanted from his complaint. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible to keep the property in a state of repair, while the resident is to allow it access to complete repairs. There needs to be collaboration between both parties to ensure these obligations are met.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised to the resident that it had not addressed the issue correctly. It failed to meet the timeframe it had given for the remedy it offered him, and it did not identify the failures we have found. While it has taken steps to put things right, its offer of compensation was for its complaint handling failures only. We do not consider its complaint response to the issue appropriately reflects the detriment to the resident. It also did not consider the resident’s vulnerability. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It says it will establish full details of the complaint, clarifying anything that is unclear. If it needs to extend a complaint it will contact the resident and advise when it expects to respond by.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages within the timeframe of its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
25. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement asked the resident if it had misunderstood his complaint he should contact him. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. Its complaint definition was “you advise that there was a fire in your property and your front door was faulty.” There is no record the resident responded to its acknowledgement. It is reasonable to conclude both parties understood what the complaint referred to. Although its stage 1 investigation looked at the wrong issue, its stage 2 addressed and apologised for its error. We do not consider there was service failure as it followed its complaints policy. However, there is learning for the landlord to consider from the resident’s complaint.
26. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement letter asked the resident if he wanted it to treat the matter as a service request to get an urgent resolution. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy which says it will do so as a starting point to put things right.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 response was within the timeframe of its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
28. The landlord advised the resident of an extension at stage 2, 18 working days after its acknowledgement. It would send its response by 13 August 2025. This was in line with its complaints policy. However, it sent its stage 2 response 7 working days after its revised target. There is no record it sought a further extension. This was a complaint handling failure.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its complaint handling failures. It acknowledged its delays and the concern this had caused the resident. Although at stage 1 it investigated the wrong issue, its stage 2 addressed this. Its offer of compensation of £115, which its records show the resident accepted, was in line with our compensation guidance for distress and inconvenience that had a minor impact on him. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

30. There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint. On issues such as the one raised by the resident the landlord may want to consider speaking with them to further clarify the complaint. This will help improve its transparency and accountability.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records generally captured the full details of its handling of the repair issue. This level of detail supports transparency and was a positive from the landlord.

Communication

32. 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 if it has not done so already.