Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202308943)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308943

Southern Housing

11 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of plumbing issues.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. She lives in a flat, within a block of flats. The landlord does not own the building and has a separate lease with the freeholder.
  2. In February 2022 the resident reported noises from the soil stack pipe. On 16 March 2022 the landlord told the resident the developer had said this was not a defect.
  3. On 28 February 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They said there was a smell of sewage in the flat and they had reported issues with their plumbing for a year. They said their neighbours were also reporting the same issues. 
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. It said in February 2023 it was told a CCTV survey of the soil stack pipe was required. It said it attempted to do this in June 2023, however, its contractor was refused access to the roof by the managing agent of the freeholder. It said the survey would be carried out on 2 October 2023. The landlord apologised and offered £550 compensation to the resident. This was broken down as:
    1. £450 for the delays and inconvenience caused from its contractor not following up the repairs from their visit in February 2023.
    2. £100 for the delays and general handling of the complaint.
  5. The landlord issued an updated stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. It offered a further £250 compensation for its lack of communication and for the impact of the noise and sewage smell on the resident.
  6. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 12 November 2023. They said the landlord had not provided any update on the outcome of the CCTV survey and the issue had not been resolved.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. It apologised for the lack of communication and said there were further access issues. It said the CCTV survey would be carried out on 8 December 2023 and it would update the resident on what works were needed. It re-offered the £550 compensation it offered in its initial stage 1 response.
  8. On 17 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it had carried out the CCTV survey on 10 January 2024 and said there was no obvious cause for the reported smells. The survey recommended further inspections to the flats internal pipework and said it needed to open up a section of the wall to inspect the outside of the pipework for a leak. It confirmed it would agree to pay its offer of £800 compensation.
  9. The resident initially approached us because the noise and sewage smells were on-going. The resident said the landlord resolved this in January 2025. The resident would still like us to investigate the complaint as they were unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the plumbing issues on their health. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.
  2. The resident told the landlord the plumbing issue also impacted neighbouring properties. This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the impact of the issue on the resident and their household. This is because we can only investigate complaints from individuals that have brought their complaint to us.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plumbing issues

  1. We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plumbing issues. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The resident’s lease states the resident must report any repairs to the communal areas and the building to the landlord.
  3. Although it is not disputed that the resident initially reported issues with their plumbing to the landlord in February 2022, we have not been provided with sufficient evidence to enable us to carry out a fair investigation of the landlord’s handling of the issues at this time. Therefore, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the plumbing issues from February 2023 when the resident reported the smell of sewage.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord instructed a drainage specialist to investigate the issues the resident reported. The landlord’s records state a closed circuit television (CCTV) survey of the soil stack pipe was carried out on 22 February 2023. There was no evidence the landlord kept a record of the survey report, that it considered what works were recommended or that it contacted the resident to update them. This was a failure.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it told the resident that on 22 February 2023 its contractor said a CCTV survey was required. It is unclear where this information came from as the evidence provided by the landlord states a CCTV survey had already been carried out.
  6. Between February 2023 and October 2023 the landlord’s records show emails were sent between the freeholder, managing agent, contractor and the landlord’s different departments, asking for information and updates on what was happening with the plumbing issues in the resident’s block. The contactor attempted to carry out a CCTV survey in July 2023 but could not get access to the roof. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different parties. This will ensure that all parties have access to accurate and current information which can be passed to and from the resident and will avoid unnecessary delays.
  7. When the resident reported that the smell of sewage was on-going, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. Instead it opted to default to works that it had carried out before, such as carrying out multiple inspections to the resident’s home and CCTV surveys. This was not resolution focused. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to ensure they understood the root cause of the matter.
  8. The landlord failed to carry out the CCTV survey of the soil vent pipes on the dates it promised in its stage 1 and 2 responses. The contractor attended on 15 December 2023 and 10 January 2024, coming up to a year after the resident made their complaint. Although the landlord’s records show the contractor had access issues and problems with its equipment, this was an unreasonable delay. The landlord failed to recognise that a CCTV survey had already been carried out and it was not proactive in communicating with the freeholder to ensure the contractor had access to the roof.
  9. There was no evidence to show the landlord carried out the recommended works from the CCTV survey. The resident told us the smell ceased in January 2025, 23 months after they made their complaint. No evidence was provided to show the landlord contacted the resident to confirm what works had been carried out and whether it considered these works to have resolved the noises and smell.
  10. There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The contractual obligation remained between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. There was evidence the landlord relied on its contractor to communicate with the resident. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where they did not know if or when the plumbing issues would be resolved. This led them to reporting the same issues several times, repeatedly chasing updates and contacting this service for support. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage their expectations.
  11. The resident told the landlord that they were pregnant and said they were concerned about the risk of the plumbing issues to the mother and unborn baby’s health. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses showing a lack of empathy. If the landlord had discussed their concerns with them and showed it had considered the potential risks, this may have helped to alleviate the resident’s worries.
  12. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their policies and procedures. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There was a failure in this case to record information about all of the repair appointments, and its communication with the resident and contractors. This lack of records is likely to have affected the landlord’s ability to manage its investigations into the cause of the plumbing issues, and the works needed to resolve it. 
  13. Overall there were significant delays in the landlord addressing the plumbing issues in the property. There was evidence of poor communication and a lack of empathy towards the resident. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. Its offer of £700 in compensation for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused was in line with its compensation framework and our remedy’s guidance. However, the landlord did not show it had learnt from the complaint. There was continuing poor communication, and in the absence of information to confirm otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord failed to resolve the plumbing issue until January 2025. This was 13 months after its stage 2 response. Although the resident states the issue has been resolved, they were never informed what the cause was or how it was resolved.
  14. On 13 March 2024 the landlord told the resident it would contact them to discuss its complaints process and compensation. Although the landlord contacted them on 15 March 2024 and explained the resident had exhausted its complaint’s procedure, there was no evidence it reviewed or discussed its offer of compensation as promised. While the offer of £700 compensation was reasonable at conclusion of the complaints process, further compensation should be awarded given the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue for a significant period of time after its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 September 2023, over 6 months later. This was a significant delay which caused the resident to chase updates and contact this service for assistance. 
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. Although the landlord contacted the resident to inform them of a delay, it failed to respond by the extension date of 22 September 2023 that was agreed with the resident.
  5. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. The landlord stated this was to answer the points we had raised on behalf of the resident. We contacted the landlord on 12 July and 8 September 2023, the landlord had time to consider our points before issuing its initial response.
  6. The resident escalated their complaint on 13 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 14 November 2023, which was within their target timescale of 5 working days.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. This was within its target timescale of 20 working days. In its response the landlord provided a compensation amount that was inconsistent with its revised stage 1 response. The resident clearly expressed their frustration and confusion on why the landlord had changed its offer. The landlord clarified its position on 17 January 2024, however, this was over a month later and it failed to apologise for its mistake.
  8. In summary there were significant delays in the landlord accepting the complaint and issuing its stage 1 response. There was evidence of poor communication. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failures and offered the resident £100 compensation. While it was positive that the landlord offered compensation, this was insufficient given the excessive delays and resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord did not show it had learnt from the complaint, as it took a month to communicate with the resident in relation to its error with the compensation amounts. It also did not state what steps it was going to take to improve its service delivery. Accordingly, the landlord failed to respond to the complaint in line with our Dispute Principles which encourage landlords to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a plumbing issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1400 compensation. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not paid onto their rent account, unless the resident requests this. The compensation is broken down as:
      1. £800 which was offered to the resident in the landlord’s revised stage 1 response dated 29 September 2023, if this has not already been paid.
      2. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of their reports of plumbing issues.
      3. £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of their associated complaint.
    3. Write to the resident and inform them what the cause of the noise and sewage smells was and what action was taken to resolve these plumbing issues in January 2025. The landlord should confirm whether it thinks the issue has been resolved permanently, or whether further works are required. If further works are required the landlord must provide the resident with a schedule of works and the estimated timescales for the completion of these works. 
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should complete a case review of the findings in this report. The review should include but is not exclusive of the following:
    1. How the landlord manages reports of communal and building repairs from leaseholders, to determine how it can prevent the failings identified in this report from reoccurring.
    2. The landlord should review its staff’s training needs to ensure its staff:
      1. Respond to requests for communal and building repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures. Making sure residents are updated and informed about appointments and delays.
      2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant parties.
      3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its policies and procedures and the Complaint Handling Code.