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

Southern Housing (202330626)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330626

Southern Housing

25 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 internal repairs to her property and damage to her front door.
    2. complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a flat, and the landlord is the head leaseholder. The property is a third-floor flat, where the resident has lived since 2011. The freeholder of the building is a third-party company.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 August 2021 about its handling of leak repairs. She said this was causing black mould in her property. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 25 August 2021. It said it had received no reports of a leak and that, as the resident was a shared owner, it had no responsibility for repairs to her property.
  3. In November 2021 following further correspondence with the landlord, the resident sent it a plumber’s report. She also referred to damage to her front door. The landlord responded in January 2022. It noted the report the resident sent detailed a leak from the property above in February 2021. It said this damage should be covered by the freeholder’s building insurance. However, it said it would arrange for its surveyor to attend so it could speak to the insurer on the resident’s behalf.
  4. After correspondence from her, the landlord told the resident in February 2022 that her complaint would remain open until remedial work had started. Later that month it told her it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. In April 2022 the landlord told the resident that, after its surveyor’s visit in February 2022, it had contacted the building’s management company to submit claim details. Later in April 2022 it sent the resident details of the building insurance claim process. It said it could not progress the insurance claim on her behalf.
  5. At the end of April and beginning of May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and asked that it provide her with a formal response to her complaint. In response the landlord said again that it could not submit insurance forms on her behalf. However, later in May 2022, it told her it would provide her with a full and formal response to her complaint. Around that time, it also communicated with the building insurer about its request for quotes for replacement of the resident’s front door.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again at the end of August 2023. She said she was still to receive a stage 2 complaint response and that the issues with damage to her property and her front door remained outstanding. On 24 October 2023, the landlord noted internally that it could not locate a stage 2 complaint response.
  7. On 10 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It noted the resident wanted repairs to be undertaken to her property. It said:
    1. it was sorry to hear that damage to the resident’s property from the leak, and to her door, had not yet been resolved.
    2. the claim was with the insurer, and it had limited ability to influence the pace of this claim.
    3. it would intervene to help progress the claim if the resident wished.
    4. there had been a lack of timely stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for this.
  8. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £720. This was made up of £120 for complaint handling failings, failure to response within timescales and miscommunication and £600 for the inconvenience caused. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2023 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint, and as repairs remained outstanding.
  9. Following further correspondence with the residence, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend in early February 2024. The surveyor detailed internal work needed to the resident’s property due to leaks, and to her front door after a locksmith had forced entry.
  10. In April 2024, the landlord told the resident that it would complete the outstanding internal repair work to her property, and the front door. It also awarded her a further payment of £600.  Around this time, it noted internally that it had established that it (rather than the resident) should have made the claim for the front door.
  11. Following this, the landlord’s contractor began repairs to the resident’s property, and replacement of the front door, in June 2024. However, the resident told us in May 2025 that she remained unhappy with the quality of the repairs completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s handling of issues had negatively impacted hers and her son’s health. We acknowledge her comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim should she request this.
  2. The resident also said that she has concerns about the work the landlord completed to her property and front door. She said that she had not been able to raise these issues with the landlord due to poor health. While we acknowledge her concerns about the quality of work, it would appropriate for her to raise these with the landlord in the first instance. If remains unhappy with its response, she may wish to consider raising a complaint with the landlord.
  3.  It would be open to the resident to raise a fresh complaint with the Ombudsman once she has concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the quality of the work.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure says that, after a repair report, it should check if the repair is its responsibility. It says that, if the resident is a shared owner or leaseholder and is responsible for the repair, then it should advise them of this. It says that if there is any doubt about who is responsible, then it should consult with its specialist team/surveyor.
  2. The resident’s lease with the landlord sets out responsibilities for repairs. It says:
    1. the resident is responsible for keeping the premises (the interior of the flat) in good and substantial repair.
    2. the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and renewing structural parts of the building, including windows and doors on the outside of flats.
  3. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Reports of internal repairs to her property and damage to her front door

  1. The landlord has accepted that delays and errors in its handling prevented resolution of the repair issues at an earlier stage. The resident had complained to it in August 2021 about internal damage to her flat following a leak. We have seen no evidence from this time that the landlord was already aware of the leak issue. Given this, it was reasonable that it asked her to provide further information.
  2. As a shared owner of the property, the resident was responsible for internal repairs to her property. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord highlight this to the resident in its stage 1 response. But after she sent it further details of the leak in November 2021, it delayed for more than 2 months before responding to this information. That was a failing. This delayed it providing information to the resident about pursuing a claim through the building insurance.
  3. While we have not seen details, the landlord said it attended the resident’s property at the beginning of February 2022 to inspect issues so it could assist her making an insurance claim. This inspection is not disputed by the resident and its attendance at this time was reasonable. However, it should have communicated with her following this inspection to clearly set out what it was doing. Instead, it was left to the resident to chase this in April 2022.
  4. Later in April and May 2022, the landlord told the resident that it had sent her documents to allow her to submit her claim to the building insurer. It said it could not submit the insurance claim on her behalf. Following this, the resident told the landlord that she had submitted a claim through the building insurance for repairs to both the front door and resolution of the leak issues.
  5. We have not seen all communication the resident had with the building insurer/its surveyor. However, there is no evidence the resident made further contact with the landlord between July 2022 and August 2023 to request assistance in pursuing her insurance claim. While that is the case, it is apparent that the landlord had also left the resident without a full response to her concerns about its handling of the matter. It had logged her stage 2 complaint in February 2023, but did not provide a full response until November 2023.
  6. Had the landlord provided a timely stage 2 complaint response, it could have clearly set out how it would support the resident should she experience difficulties in making the insurance claim. While it offered this support in its eventual stage 2 complaint response of November 2023, that was 18 months after the resident had made the claim.
  7. It is also apparent that the landlord failed to sufficiently consider the nature of the repairs the resident had reported, or its obligations under the lease. As set out in the lease, the resident was responsible for the internal repairs to her flat, but the landlord was responsible for repairs to her front door.
  8. The records show the landlord had been told by the resident, since at least November 2021, of the damage to her front door. That it did not identify its responsibility for the front door repairs at an earlier stage was a failing. Instead, it continued to direct the resident to pursue the claim to the building insurer herself.
  9. In line with its own procedure, if it was in any doubt, then the landlord should have consulted with its specialist team/surveyor. That there is no evidence it took appropriate steps to establish who was responsible for making the front door claim was a failing. It only identified around April 2024 that it, rather than the resident, should have made the claim for the front door. Until that point, it had unreasonably placed responsibility for doing so on the resident. This resulted in her spending time and trouble trying to progress the matter.
  10. Further, the landlord’s failure to correctly identify its responsibilities hindered and protracted the progress of this claim. The resident had copied the landlord into her email correspondence with the insurer’s surveyor in May 2022. At this time, the surveyor had requested 2 quotes for the door repairs. The landlord responded providing 1 quote for the door, Later, in July 2022, it took some action to request a further quote. However, it failed to follow this up to ensure the issue was appropriately progressed.
  11. When the landlord contacted the insurer’s surveyor again in February 2024, the surveyor responded stating that it had been waiting for a second quote since June 2022. Had the landlord submitted the claim for the front door itself, in line with its responsibilities, it is likely these delays could have been avoided.
  12. The landlord eventually began steps to progress front door repairs itself June 2024. However, it should not have taken so long to resolve front door repairs. While we have seen no indication the resident’s door was not secure during this time, she was left with damage to it for at least 2 and a half years. This was far longer than was reasonable.
  13. After identifying that it should have taken responsibility for submitting the front door claim, the landlord the contacted the resident in April 2024 agreeing to complete all internal repairs to her property and to replace her front door. It said that it would complete this work at no cost to the resident. It told us it had agreed this action in recognition of its mishandling of the resident’s request for assistance regarding internal repairs and the damage to her front door. It also awarded a further payment to the resident of £600. This payment was in addition to the £600 award it made in November 2023 in recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced.
  14. The landlord did not outline what part of its award in November 2023 was in recognition of failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property and damage to her front door. It would have been better had it done so. However, with consideration to all the circumstances of the case and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the awards made by the landlord were appropriate redress in recognition of failings in its handling of the matter.
  15. We have not ordered that the landlord make an increased award to the resident. However, we have identified some unremedied failings in its handling of the matter. As outlined above, it had noted internally that it should have pursued the claim for the front door itself. Its subsequent award to the resident, and action it agreed to take to resolve repairs, were appropriate. But it should also have explained and apologised to the resident for directing her to make this claim herself. That there is no evidence it has taken this action is a failing. Doing so would have demonstrated that it was being open and accountable for its contribution to the delays in repair issues being resolved.
  16. Given the failings we identified in this report, we have also recommended that the landlord review whether it has sufficient guidance and agreements in place in respect of how it will support residents making claims through third–party building insurance.
  17. Overall, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal repairs to her property and damage to her front door.

The complaint.

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint in August 2021 was timely. However, its stage 2 response was delayed by more than a year and a half. It told the resident in February 2022 that it had escalated her complaint. Following this, after further communication, it said in May 2022 that it would provide a full and formal response to her complaint. However, it did not do so until November 2023. This was only after the resident made further contact in late August 2023.
  2. The landlord noted in internal records in October 2023 that it could not locate a previous stage 2 complaint response for the resident. It said it had attached a response for another resident to the case. This is evidence of its poor management of the complaint. It should have ensured it had responded in full to the resident’s complaint. Its failings resulted in an unreasonable delay in it providing a stage 2 complaint response. This also delayed the resident being able to escalate her concerns to the Ombudsman for independent review.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its delayed complaint handling in its eventual stage 2 complaint response. At this time, it apologised to the resident. It said the delay in it resolving issues was not acceptable. It also awarded her £120 for its unsatisfactory complaint handling. In addition, it awarded £600 for the inconvenience caused.
  4. As noted earlier, it would have been better if the landlord had clearly set out what part of its £600 award related to the impact of its poor complaint handling. However, we have considered all the circumstances. The awards the landlord made represented reasonable redress in recognition of failings in its complaint handling. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal repairs to her property and damage to her front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for directing her to make the claim to the building insurer for the front door, rather than doing so itself.
    2. pay the resident compensation totalling £1,200, which it awarded in November 2023 and April 2024. Any payment already made should be deducted from the total amount.
    3. remind its staff of the importance of taking adequate steps to establish responsibility for repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The determination of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord pay the resident £120 previously offered within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not done so already.
  2. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the quality of the work to her home.
  3. We recommend that, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord review whether it has sufficient guidance and agreements in place in respect of how it will support residents making claims through third-party building insurance.