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

Soha Housing Limited (202334993)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334993

Soha Housing Limited

24 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs and request for compensation for failed appointments.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house since September 2021.
  2. The resident reported several repair issues to the landlord during the period September 2021 to February 2022, for which it arranged repairs. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 May 2022 regarding failed appointments and outstanding work. He requested compensation for loss of earnings from the missed appointments. The landlord apologised for repair delays on 12 May 2022. It completed a site visit on 22 November 2022 to discuss outstanding issues with the resident. Following this, it arranged further works, such as to the bathroom.
  3. In December 2022, the landlord completed a bathroom replacement. It told the resident to tell it about any “snags” caused by the works. The resident asked the landlord to install a fence at the front of his property in early 2023.
  4. In April 2023, the landlord told the resident it does not pay for loss of earnings but offered him £200 compensation, as a gesture of goodwill. It explained it made this offer in “full and final settlement” in an email in August 2023. Within this email, it said it would not install fencing, but the resident could apply to do this himself.
  5. The resident complained again in September 2023. He said he had experienced 6 failed appointments to resolve issues with the condition of the property from when he moved in. He explained that he rejected its offer of £200 as he had lost £750 in wages. He also complained that it had not completed the snags he had reported in December 2022. He said that his storage heaters were inadequate for his property and that he had requested that it install a fence at the front of his property due to a lack of security and privacy.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2023. It explained that it had investigated the dates of the 6 appointments the resident provided. It said only 2 of these matched its records, with only 1 being a missed appointment. It maintained its offer of £200 compensation for the issues the resident had experienced with the initial property condition, repairs, and appointments. It said it had requested its contractor contact him to arrange to complete the bathroom repairs and a heating survey.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint on 5 November 2023. He said he was prepared to accept £500 for the issues experienced. He said its contractor must complete his bathroom “snagging” list within 14 days and provided details of the outstanding issues. He also asked it to install fencing at the front of his property and reported new repair issues.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It acknowledged failings in the property condition when the resident moved in and repair delays. It explained that it considered its offer of £200 fair to address the missed appointments and its failures.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. He said it had not addressed all issues he raised. He explained that it had sent incorrect contractors on several occasions resulting in failed appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that his electric storage heaters are inadequate for the property. He asked it to consider installing an air source heating system. We have seen no evidence that the resident previously raised this as an issue with the landlord. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat this as a service request. It said that it would arrange a heating survey to determine if the heating system was working correctly.
  2. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response or its subsequent actions in relation to this issue, this would be a new complaint that he would need to raise with the landlord. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this complaint once he has exhausted its complaint process, he can ask us to investigate this as a new complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs and request for compensation for failed appointments.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that when an issue is raised it aims to resolve it within 3 working days. It says that if the complaint is more complex in nature or the resident is not satisfied with the outcome, they can make a formal complaint. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 May 2022 about failed appointments and outstanding repair work. The landlord apologised to the resident on 12 May 2022 and arranged a date for a new appointment. However, we have seen no evidence that it told the resident it was treating his complaint informally, or that it resolved all the issues he had complained about at this point, with it continuing to deal with this informally up to August 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and so its approach was unreasonable.
  3. This caused a delay in the landlord providing a formal response, as it did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 12 October 2023, 364 working days after his original complaint. The landlord did not identify or apologise for this delay in its complaint responses, which was a failing.
  4. The resident complained that he had experienced 4 failed appointments and 2 missed appointments between 10 October 2021 and 1 April 2022. The evidence only shows 3 appointments in the landlord’s records that matched the appointment dates the resident provided. One of them, in April was missed. A second appointment, in February, failed because the wrong type of tradesperson was sent.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that there were issues with the property condition that it could take learnings from to improve its pre-tenancy inspections. It also acknowledged that there had been delays completing repairs for several reasons, such the missed appointment, and sending the wrong tradesperson. It apologised for its failures and the missed appointment. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge and apologise for the failings it had identified.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord told the resident that he could add any snags caused by the bathroom works to its contractor’s list for repairs on 27 December 2022. The resident told it that he agreed the snag list with the contractor in December 2022. There is no evidence of this, but he contacted the landlord on 11 May 2023 to chase completion of the work. The landlord advised him on 2 August 2023 that it had requested its contractor contact him to arrange to complete the work. The resident complained at both complaint stages that its contractor had not completed the work.
  7. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response in October 2023 that it had escalated a request for its contractor to contact him as soon as possible to complete the works. It was appropriate for the landlord to chase this. However, it was a failure that the landlord had not already ensured that its contractor had completed the work on the resident’s snag list. The resident chased this in May 2023, but this was still outstanding in October 2023.
  8. Further to this, we have seen no evidence that the contractor contacted the resident as requested or that it completed any further works. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated it took the actions promised in its complaint response and ensured that these issues were resolved. This leaves this element of the complaint unresolved.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to install a fence at the front of his property. He said the property originally had a fence, but his neighbour had removed it. The landlord told the resident it would not do so. It confirmed this position in its email on 2 August 2023. However, it said that he could fill in alterations form to apply to install a fence himself.
  10. The resident complained about its decision. He said his was the only property that did not have a boundary fence meaning he had no privacy or security and that the neighbour had removed the fence without the landlord’s consent. He included this information in his stage 2 complaint. However, the landlord did not respond to it in either of its complaint responses.
  11. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident asked the landlord to plaster and paint his lounge walls. He also asked it to investigate rising damp and mould growth in his downstairs bathroom. These were service requests rather than complaints, given that there is no evidence he had reported the matters previously. The landlord did not respond to these requests within its complaint responses, and we have seen no evidence that it provided a response outside of them.
  12. In line with the Code, the landlord should have addressed the fence issue and the resident’s service requests. If it was not going to respond to the service requests through its complaint process, it should have explained this to the resident.
  13. The resident asked the landlord to compensate him for lost earnings due to taking days off work for appointments. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation where its contractors have not turned up to a repairs appointment. However, it does not state that it will consider compensation for loss of earnings. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to only consider providing compensation for missed appointments, rather than reimbursing lost earnings, as this was in line with its policy.
  14. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for delays completing repairs and for issues with appointments. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord responding to the original complaint through its complaint process. It also failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about its fence decision, and his request for further repairs. There was a delay in the landlord completing repairs on the resident’s bathroom snag list and it has not demonstrated that it followed up on or completed this work following its complaint response. Therefore, it failed to put things right through its complaint response and its offer of £200 compensation was not proportionate for the impact its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about it handling of repairs and request for compensation for failed appointments.

Orders and recommendation

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £500. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 already offered in its complaint responses.
    2. £300 for the failures identified within this report. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures where there has been no permanent impact but where there were failures have caused the resident ongoing inconvenience and frustration that the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right.
  2. The current state of the work from the resident’s bathroom snagging list detailed in his stage 2 escalation is unclear. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must either demonstrate that it completed the repairs on the snagging list or if any of the work is not complete, it must provide a schedule of work which explains how and when it will complete the outstanding work.
  3. In light of the failings identified within paragraph 24 within 8 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to respond to the resident’s complaint about its decision regarding the fence and his requests for additional repairs included in his stage 2 escalation on 5 November 2023. It must either investigate the issues and respond to them or explain why it will not investigate them. In doing so it must pay careful attention to the expectations set out in the Code and its complaint policy.
  4. Evidence of this must be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident by the relevant deadline.