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

Southern Housing (202314409)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314409

Southern Housing

27 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports about a boiler repair.
    2. Delays starting a gate adaptation.
    3. Handling of problems with the resident’s front door.
    4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Delays starting the gate adaptation

  1. Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters in respect of local housing authorities which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
  2. The evidence shows the resident has mobility issues and uses a mobility scooter. The evidence also indicates from 2019 she requested adaptations to her fence for mobility scooter access and storage on her patio area.
  3. On 21 October 2022 an occupation therapy (OT) assessment report recommended adaptations to install a gate leading to the patio area.
  4. From October 2022, an external company (the Company) worked with the resident around the fence gate adaptation. The evidence indicates this included on 12 December 2023 submitting an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to the local Council. This was approved on 5 February 2024 by the Council after which the Company provided the resident’s representative with a work schedule. The resident has told the Service the fence gate adaptation was subsequently completed.
  5. On 20 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about not progressing the OT recommendations for the gate adaptation. On 27 June 2024, it issued its final complaint response. The landlord said the Company told it the DFG application had been delayed because it was waiting for the OT report and the resident’s welfare benefits details. This also delayed the start of the adaptation works. The landlord said it was not in control of the issuing of the OT report, the DFG application or the gate adaptation works, which were the responsibility of the Council and the Company. It explained they were not acting on the landlord’s behalf or as part of its organisation. It referred the resident to them in respect of her concerns about the delays.
  6. This complaint concerns the delays starting the gate adaptation. The evidence shows the delays involved the DFG and related activity by the Council and potentially the Company. The Council’s role in assessing and providing grants and funding for disability adaptations is not part of its landlord role in managing its social housing. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is the appropriate body to consider complaints about the DFG application, and potentially the Company’s actions in delivering the adaptations. Accordingly, this part of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme. The resident may wish to refer her concerns about this to the LGSCO, but any decision about whether to investigate them will be for the LGSCO to take.
  7. In its complaint response the landlord offered compensation for the delays. Given the delays appear to have been in relation to things it was not responsible for, it is not apparent why it did so. Nonetheless, this is referred to below while considering its compensation for the other aspects of this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy of a ground floor flat.
  2. This investigation involves 2 reports by the resident which led to 2 separate complaints.
  3. The evidence shows the resident reported having no hot water or heating over a 4 month period from 15 February 2023. The landlord’s records show while it initially tried to repair the boiler, it eventually replaced it to resolve the issue.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 19 April 2023 due to the boiler issue being unresolved. She also raised other issues such as her having to decline the offer of temporary heaters because of the running costs. In its initial complaint response on 15 May 2023, the landlord confirmed a new boiler was installed on 11 May 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, offered £479.70 compensation, and said it would have paid the costs of temporary heater use.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 18 May 2023. The evidence shows on 17 May she reported having no heating and hot water and on 18 May 2023 the landlord identified that an unsealed pipe. On 8 June 2023, the resident’s representative outlined the reasons for the escalation including boiler installation being incomplete and the mental health impact on the resident of being overwhelmed and distressed. The landlord issued a final response on 20 June 2023. It said the repair would be complete on 12 June 2023 with a gas pipe seal. It apologised for its poor communication, repair delays and the resultant health impact on the resident’s and offered £719.70 compensation. On 20 July 2023 after clarifying the dates of the loss of amenity, it amended the compensation to £841.19.
  6. Separately the resident, reported in July 2023 that her newly replaced front door was too heavy for her to use including from her mobility scooter.
  7. The resident complained on 20 July saying her new flat front door was difficult to open and close and on 10 August 2023, she said a disability assessment had not been done before replacing the door. On 2 May 2024, the landlord issued its first complaint response. It set out a number of options to resolve the issue, such as changing the door closer, and confirmed the resident could store her scooter temporarily in the communal area. It invited her to select her preferred option after which it said it would assess further alterations for her door. It said it was sorry for its complaint handling delays, poor communication, and impact on her health for which it offered £80 compensation.
  8. The resident’s escalated her complaint on 8 May 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial response. On 27 June 2024, the landlord issued its final complaint response stating the resident’s front door closer could be changed, but not the door itself for fire safety reasons. It apologised for its response delays and increased the compensation to £580 for its complaint handling, poor communication and inconvenience caused (including for the adaptation issues).
  9. The resident brought her boiler complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 July 2023 and her front door complaint on 8 May 2024. The resident seeks a resolution to her front door access issue and additional compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained the landlord’s actions had a detrimental impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. It will not be considered in this report.

Boiler repair

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it is responsible for keeping in repair the property structure including doors. It is also responsible for maintaining installations for supplying heating, hot water, and sanitation. It says it will complete non-emergency repairs in “as little time as possible” and emergency repairs such as “heating loss for elderly/vulnerable residents at all times” within 6 hours of a report. Its compensation policy says it will offer alternative heating or the running costs from other heating sources.
  2. The resident complained on 19 April 2023 about hot water and heating loss despite 3 separate repair visits. She stated she had declined an offer of temporary heaters due to their running costs. In the landlord’s initial complaint response of 15 May 2023, it upheld the resident’s complaint confirming the boiler had been replaced on 11 May 2023. It offered £479.70 compensation for inconvenience, and amenity loss. It also said in heating loss cases it would compensate residents for the costs of using temporary heaters. The landlord therefore appropriately acknowledged the impact caused, offered compensation, and clarified the costs issue.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 May 2023. On 8 June 2023, her representative set out her dissatisfaction about the delays, poor communication including around the help with costs, and the resultant impact on the resident.
  4. In its final complaint response of 20 June, the landlord said the repair was complete after a pipe seal on 12 June 2023. It appropriately apologised for the repair delays, the health impact caused, and its communication including around providing financial help. It reasonably said it would consider paying any costs incurred by the resident if she provided the details. It offered additional compensation of £250. On 20 July 2023, it increased the compensation to a total of £841.19 to reflect more accurate dates of loss of amenity.
  5. The compensation was proportionate to the nature of the repair issues and the stress and inconvenience caused. It was also in line Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint of this nature and scale.
  6. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress offer put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The intermittent loss of hot water and heating from 15 February to 2 June 2023 would have been understandably stressful for the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord’s final complaint response was reasonable. It appropriately apologised, compensated the resident as well as offered to consider additional costs, and confirmed the completion of the boiler replacement work. These remedies were appropriate to resolve the complaint.

Flat front door

  1. The landlord’s reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy states if a resident is recorded as vulnerable it will deliver services that meet their needs.
  2. The resident complained on 20 July and 10 August 2023 that the new front door to her flat was too heavy for her to open and close, she felt trapped in her flat, and it was installed without a disability assessment. While there is no evidence of when the door was installed, the resident originally reported the issue in early July 2023. She said the landlord had said she could not leave her scooter outside her flat despite her difficulties with managing the heavy door. Following her initial complaint, she also said she was dissatisfied with the complaint handling delays. On 14 November 2023, the resident’s care coordinator told the landlord the new door meant she could not leave her home unaccompanied, impacting her ability to attend urgent appointments.
  3. The landlord explained in its initial complaint response of 2 May 2024 a fire door was necessary for fire safety reasons. It, however, said it could resolve the issue in 3 ways (do nothing pending the new gate adaptation, adjust the door closer, or install a free swing door closer). It asked the resident to confirm which option she preferred. It also said pending the adaptation works, she could store her scooter in the communal area as long as she did not block the fire escape route. It apologised for its complaint handling delays, poor communication, and the health impact on the resident.
  4. The evidence indicates the landlord conducted a fire risk assessment on 19 September 2023 (a copy of the assessment has not been provided). There is no evidence indicating when and how it decided on the 3 options to resolve the door issue or if they were presented to the resident before its May 2024 complaint response. Had it done so it may have been able to mitigate the impact of the door issue before the gate adaptation was completed. The delay communicating the options was significantly long and not in line with its policy commitment to resolve repairs in “as little time as possible” and deliver services to meet the needs of its vulnerable residents.
  5. In response to the resident’s understandable concerns about storing her scooter in the communal area, the landlord confirmed she could do so. This was reasonable in the circumstances, especially as the evidence indicates it had already agreed for her to store the scooter in the communal area after the front door change.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint as the door had not been “amended”. The landlord’s final response of 27 June 2024 confirmed it could still change her door closer but not the door itself as it was a fire safety door. It said the gate adaptation was complete and enabled rear door access and therefore “the main door is no longer required as a route of access”. It apologised for its complaint handling delays and revised the stage 1 compensation offer to £480 compensation (£30 for poor communication and £450 for inconvenience, and time and trouble).
  7. The landlord’s response went some way towards remedying its failings with the door, especially as the resident now had full access to her home via the back. However, its internal records show the new front door had been installed without an assessment of the resident’s physical health needs. This was not in line with its policy to deliver services to meet resident’s needs, as an assessment of any needs is understandably an element of meeting them. If an assessment had been done the landlord may at least have been able to manage the resident’s expectations about her options much earlier. Neither complaint response acknowledged nor apologised for the lack of an assessment before the new door was installed. This was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord’s re-offer of the door closer option was appropriate to resolve the door issue, and it was also in line with its policy values to deliver services to meet vulnerable resident’s needs. There is no evidence the resident communicated her preferred option to the landlord or, if it is the case, why the door closer option is not feasible.
  9. In its final response the landlord offered £30 for its poor communication and £450 for the overall inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the gate adaptation and the front door complaints. It did not distinguish between the two. In the absence of a clear explanation, we have divided the amount evenly between the 2 issues (£225) to consider the reasonableness of the compensation for the door issue.
  10. On that basis, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the £255 compensation was low given the lack of a needs assessment around the door before it was changed, inaction over a significant period, the delays communicating the options, the time and trouble the resident was put to chasing updates, and the overall impact on her access to her home.
  11. While the resident has been understandably distressed and frustrated by the door change, the landlord has offered to alter the door closer to alleviate the problems she faced. The evidence does not show she has responded to the landlord. In the meantime, she has access via the rear of her property. However, although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings, it has not done so in respect of not carrying out a needs assessment before the new door was installed, and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the nature and extent of its failures. Because of that it has not appropriately resolved the complaint. Given the nature of the issue and its impact on the resident’s day to day life, that was a significant failing.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 of acknowledgements.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses exceeded its policy timescales by 195 days and 10 days, respectively. The evidence indicates the resident was periodically contacted about extending the complaint responses timeframe. Both responses explained the delay was due to its reliance on the Council’s and the Company’s input about the resident’s DFG application and gate adaptation. The evidence generally supports the landlord’s explanation, meaning that in this case the delays appear to have been caused largely by the landlord’s need to rely on external organisations, and the fact that it was responding to complaints about issues it was not responsible for.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord kept the resident updated about her complaint progress and the delays. In its final complaint response it acknowledged and apologised for them, explained how they occurred, and offered £100 compensation. In these unusual circumstances of this complaint those remedies were proportionate and appropriate when considered against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. They reasonably remedied the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the boiler repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the complaint about delays starting a gate adaptation is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about her flat front door.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report about her flat front door and the associated complaint. This level of compensation is for its failure to assess the door before installation, and the delays with putting the options to resolve the door issues to the resident.
    2. This sum is in addition to the £355 compensation previously offered by the landlord.
    3. Evidence of compliance must be provided to the Service by the deadline.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must review the door closer options for the resident’s flat front door in cooperation with her. It must also provide a schedule of works by which it will complete whatever option the resident chooses. If the resident subsequently has concerns about the landlord’s adherence to its schedule or the way it updates her about any changes, she will be entitled to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord and then bring her complaint back to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £841.19 compensation previously offered for the boiler issues. The determination is partly based on it doing so.