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

Southern Housing (202307419)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307419

Southern Housing

31 January 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:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues, and its handling of associated repairs.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs about an ant infestation, and its handling of associated repairs.

c.      The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a faulty fire door, and its handling of associated repairs.

d.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak under the kitchen sink, and its handling of associated repairs.

e.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a faulty communal door intercom, and its handling of associated repairs.

f.        The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade.

g.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about faulty electrical sockets, and its handling of associated repairs.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

 Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy began in 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, within a 2-storey building.
  2. The resident raised a disrepair claim against the landlord in 2022. A single joint expert was appointed to inspect the property and create a schedule of proposed works. A schedule of proposed works was issued to the parties on 28 September 2022.
  3. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2023, without prejudice, with proposals to settle the claim.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that the parties agreed to settle the disrepair claim. As part of the settlement, the landlord committed to completing all of the repairs that were set out in the joint expert report. It did not agree to carry out any improvement works that were not detailed in the joint expert’s proposed schedule of works.
  5. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023. The complaint concerned ongoing issues and outstanding repairs in relation to drainage, an internal fire door, electrical sockets, and an intercom system. The resident claimed that the landlord had ignored a request from occupation health for a new bathroom. She said its handling of a rat and ant infestation had been poor. The resident was frustrated with having to continually chase the landlord to get repairs completed. The resident said the landlord should provide an action plan, with timescales, for completing outstanding repairs.
  6. The landlord logged the matter as a formal complaint on 5 June 2023. The resident decided to withdraw the complaint on 10 July 2023, after deciding to pursue matters via a new disrepair claim. The landlord responded by closing the complaint.
  7. The resident approached the Ombudsman for advice on 14 July 2023. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue a stage 1 response by 4 August 2024, if it had not already done so. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 4 August 2023, that it was willing to reopen the complaint but it would need more time to investigate. The Ombudsman informed the landlord on 15 August 2023, that the resident had requested the landlord reopen the complaint.
  8. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 11 September 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint in part. It accepted that there had been delays in its complaint handling for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation. It accepted that the resident was still experiencing issues with drainage, which could be impacting the damp and mould within the property. It expressed an intention to complete identified repairs. It offered £250 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident had been caused.
  9. The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 29 September 2023, after the resident raised dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The resident said the landlord should complete all outstanding repairs by the end of 2023 and pay £18,000 compensation.
  10. The landlord issues the stage 2 response on 8 November 2023. Of particular note, the landlord:

a.     Expressed regret that the resident had experienced ongoing and repeated drainage issues. It noted that the repairs were now complete and it had written to all residents asking residents not to put wet wipes down the toilet. The landlord said that it was unable to review this complaint element further, as this had already been considered as part of a disrepair claim, for which there had been a settlement.

b.     Said it was unable to upgrade the bathroom as this was fully functioning and the resident had accepted the current bathroom when she accepted the tenancy. It clarified that the bathroom was due for an upgrade in 2029.

c.      Commented that no repairs had been raised for a kitchen leak so far that year. While there had been a historical issue relating to the connection to the washing machine, this was not something that the landlord was responsible for.

d.     Said it was sorry the resident was still experiencing damp and mould in the property. It said it would arrange for its Maintenance Surveyor to make contact by 22 November 2023, to arrange an inspection.

e.     Set out the action that it had taken to address an ant infestation in the property. It said its Maintenance Surveyor would be able to raise a repair following its attendance, if pest control was still required.

f.        Suggested that the resident show its Maintenance Surveyor the internal door that she felt needed replacing. It said its Maintenance Surveyor would be able to confirm whose responsibility it was to replace this.

g.     Said it was sorry to learn that she was experiencing an issue with electrical sockets in the property. It said its Maintenance Surveyor would inspect these and arrange any repairs that may be necessary.

h.     Did not change the offer of compensation it made at stage 1, upon review.

  1. The landlord made an application for possession of the property for rent arrears, which was due to be heard in the county court in June 2024. The resident responded by submitting a counter claim for disrepair on 26 June 2024.

 

 

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  3. After carefully considering all of the available evidence, the Ombudsman has determined, that the complaint points set out at paragraph 1a to 1c of this report, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the resident is engaged in legal proceedings in which she has the opportunity to raise the complaints and has done so in a June 2024 counter claim.
  4. In relation to the remaining complaint points, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 31 May 2022 and 8 November 2023. This being 12 months prior to the substantive complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted. However, this investigation may consider events beyond this time where relevant to the resolution of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Landlords are not usually obliged to make improvements to a property. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the repair.
  2. The landlord also had a contractual and statutory obligation to keep any installations for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water, and sanitation, in proper working order. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, this included electric wiring, sockets, and switches.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated that residents are responsible for any fixtures or fittings provided by the resident themselves. The landlord will attend to emergency repairs for which it is responsible, within 6 hours to make safe. This includes “unsafe electrical fittings (excluding resident owned appliances)”. The policy does not specify an expected timescale for completing non-emergency repairs but will arrange appointments “for as soon as possible”.
  4. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord had adopted the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). At the time of the complaint, the Code stated that landlords must accept a complaint unless there was a valid reason not to so. For example, the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months ago.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it will pay compensation. The landlord may pay compensation in recognition of poor service, failure to follow policy or procedure, or failure to act in a reasonable manner. The level of compensation paid is based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is dependent on the impact to the resident. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak under the kitchen sink, and its handling of associated repairs

  1. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s account that she reported issues with leaks under the kitchen sink on 4 March 2019, 13 March 2021, and 9 May 2022. However, these reports predate the scope of this investigation. The landlord was not expected to provided records for the purposes of this investigation, which predated the timescale of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  2. It is noted that the resident did not raise dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve leaks under the kitchen sink in the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023. However, the resident did list this as a matter of dissatisfaction, in later discussions with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman made the landlord aware of this on 14 July 2023. The landlord acted fairly by addressing this matter in the stage 1 response on 11 September 2023.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to review its delivery of repairs to leaks under the sink, in the 6-months prior to stage 1 complaint being raised. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy at the time. It was positive that it looked beyond this timeframe to understand the background to the complaint.
  4. The landlord noted that the resident had reported a leak under the kitchen sink on 4 January 2022. It said this was identified as an issue with the connection on the resident’s own washing machine, which was the resident’s responsibility to repair. This advice would have been in line with landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
  5. While the landlord may not have had any reports about water leaks under the sink from the resident within 6 months of the stage 1 complaint being raised, it was evident that the resident felt this was an outstanding matter. It may have been helpful if the landlord had arranged to inspect this, as part of the complaint resolution. The landlord could then have acted accordingly thereafter.
  6. The resident raised concerns again on 16 October 2023, about the leak under the sink. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection by its Maintenance Surveyor. Although an inspection was carried out on 18 October 2023, its Maintenance Surveyor went on leave before submitting the inspection report. This left the matter unresolved, which was unfair in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord did not change its position at stage 2 on 8 November 2023, after noting that it had received no reports about leaks under the kitchen during that year. But it should have been apparent to the landlord that the resident had raised issues with an unresolved leak under the sink, on several occasions during the complaint process.  
  8. Although the landlord did not specifically commit to inspecting for leaks under the sink as part of the stage 2 resolution, its surveyor did proactively inspect under the kitchen sink when it attended on 15 November 2023. Following its inspection, the landlord recommended a job be raised, to trace a leak under the kitchen sink and carry out repairs. This suggests that there was an unresolved leak under the kitchen sink.
  9. The landlord missed opportunities to address the resident’s concerns about a leak under sink, in a timelier manner. The landlord’s dismissal of the resident’s concerns about this during the complaint investigation was unfair and was likely to have caused frustration for the resident and undermined the tenant landlord relationship.
  10. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak under the kitchen sink, and its handling of associated repairs.
  11. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from the failings identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a faulty communal door intercom, and its handling of associated repairs

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident may have reported issues with the intercom in March 2022, which predates the scope of this investigation. It was reasonable for the landlord to review its delivery of repairs to the intercom in the 6-months prior to stage 1 complaint being raised. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy at the time.
  2. According to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident reported that the intercom had become detached from the wall on 7 March 2023. It was not possible to verify this from the evidence seen. According to the landlord’s repairs records, its contractor arranged an appointment to repair the intercom on 10 March 2023, which suggests that the landlord was treating the matter with some urgency. The Ombudsman was unable to verify an outcome from this appointment.
  3. The landlord’s records show that another routine repair was raised on 3 April 2023, to investigate and repair the intercom. The landlord stated in the stage 1 response that an appointment was scheduled to remedy this on 12 May 2023. Again, it was not possible to verify an outcome from this appointment.
  4. The resident stated in the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023, that the intercom was still not working, which suggests that repairs to the intercom had not been fully resolved. The resident described feeling “unsafe” without a working intercom, given that she was a survivor of domestic abuse.  
  5. It is accepted that the landlord may have needed some time to investigate the stage 1 complaint, given the number of complaint points raised. It is also noted that the resident later withdrew the complaint so she could raise a new disrepair claim. But the landlord should still have acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the intercom in a timely manner and explained what it was doing to accelerate the repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively explored with the resident, whether there was any interim support that it was able to offer her, given the circumstances.
  6. It is understood from the stage 1 response, that another appointment was made to address the issue with the intercom on 3 July 2023. However, the Ombudsman was unable to verify this from the evidence seen. The landlord’s records suggest that repairs to the intercom were still outstanding as of 16 August 2023, as the landlord was waiting for a quote from its contractor. But by the time the landlord issued the stage 1 response on 11 September 2023, works to the intercom had been completed. It was unclear what date the intercom was fixed.
  7. There is no evidence that the resident raised any new concerns about the intercom not working following issue of the stage 1 response. This suggests that the matter was resolved.
  8. It was evident that the resident was without a fully working intercom for an extended period of time, which was unreasonable. This was likely to have created continued distress and worry for the resident, given her history of domestic abuse.
  9. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a faulty communal door intercom, and its handling of associated repairs.
  10. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, arising from the failings identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade

  1. The resident’s solicitor asked the landlord in February 2023, to consider upgrading the bathroom, during negotiations to settle the resident’s disrepair claim. The resident’s solicitor told the landlord that the resident did not need the current wet room adaptation and would be grateful for a new bathroom suite, as part of its regular refurbishment. The landlord committed to completing only those repairs that were detailed in the proposed schedule of works issued by the joint expert in September 2022. It was understandable that the landlord may not have agreed to change the bathroom, given that it was not obliged to carry out improvements to the property. It has not been possible to determine whether the resident was aware of the landlord’s decision at this time.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023, that the landlord had ignored an occupational health request for a new bathroom, which was required by the resident and her child. She stated that the landlord was yet to approve a date for renovating the bathroom.
  3. The landlord noted in the stage 1 response on 11 September 2023, that the resident had told the landlord on 26 April 2023, that adaptions were required to the bathroom, as it was no longer suitable for the needs of her child. The landlord said that it had previously explained to the resident, that such requests would require an OT assessment and would be considered and funded by the local authority through a disabled facilities grant. The landlord said that it would need to give permission before any grant funded adaptations could be carried out. The Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord’s account from the available evidence. But this information was in line with general advice provided on the landlord’s website.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord received an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment from the local authority during the timeline of the complaint, seeking permission to carry out aids and adaptations to the bathroom. Either the landlord did not receive such a request from the local authority, or there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. The resident raised concerns again on 16 October 2023, about the need for bathroom renovations. The landlord responded by arranging an inspection of the bathroom by its Maintenance Surveyor. This was positive given that the resident had reported various repairs issues with the bathroom over the timeline of the complaint. Although an inspection was carried out on 18 October 2023, its Maintenance Surveyor went on leave before submitting the inspection report. This left the matter unresolved, which was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord helpfully clarified at stage 2 on 8 November 2023, that the bathroom was due for an upgrade in 2029, subject to inspection. It noted that the resident had accepted the bathroom as it was, when she signed the tenancy. This was a fair observation. But it might have supported the resident by reminding her, that she could approach the local authority OT team, if she felt that the wet room no longer met the needs of the household.
  7. It was understandable that the landlord would be reluctant to upgrade the bathroom if it was still functioning. However, it was obliged to keep the bathroom in a reasonable state of repair. If the landlord was unable to obtain a copy of the inspection report carried out on 18 October 2023, it ought to have committed to reassessing the condition of the bathroom, as part of the complaint resolution. The landlord could then have acted accordingly, depending upon its findings.
  8. While the landlord did not specifically offer to assess the bathroom, its surveyor did proactively inspect the bathroom when it attended on 15 November 2023. It identified a blocked drain and an issue with the wet room flooring, which it recommended ought to be addressed. No other concerns were identified with the bathroom, which suggests that the bathroom was still in a reasonable state of repair.
  9. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade. There was minor failure by the landlord, which was likely to have caused some inconvenience for the resident. However, the failures identified were unlikely to have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  10. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from the failings identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

 

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about faulty electrical sockets, and its handling of associated repairs.

  1. The landlord committed to completing those works that were detailed in the single joint expert report, issued in September 2022, when settling the resident’s disrepair claim. This included replacing 2 electric sockets in one of the bedrooms and the fused switched spur in the hallway drier cupboard.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen a works order dated 29 March 2023, requesting the landlord’s contractor investigate any faulty electrical sockets throughout the property and report any follow-on works. The landlord claimed during the complaint process, that this works order was raised on 28 March 2023 and its contractor attended on 29 March 2023, which suggests that the landlord was treating the repair with some urgency. According to the landlord’s engineer’s report, its engineer changed a double socket, a fuse spur, and a gang switch. Photographs of the job were provided to the landlord as evidence that the job had been completed. The engineer’s notes do not clarify what date the job was completed.
  3. The resident told the landlord in the stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023, that repairs to the electrical sockets were incomplete. The resident told the Ombudsman on the same day, that the landlord had started repairs but had not returned to complete them. While the landlord’s engineer’s report may have confirmed that the job was complete, it was evident that the resident believed this was not the case.
  4. It is accepted that the landlord may have needed some time to investigate the stage 1 complaint, given the number of complaint points raised. It is also noted that the resident later withdrew the complaint so she could raise a new disrepair claim. But the landlord ought to have recognised in a timelier manner, that the resident was worried that the electrical sockets in the property were unsafe and then acted accordingly. The landlord might have reassured the resident sooner than 11 September 2023, that its engineer’s report showed the works to the electrics were complete. Better still, it might have arranged an electrical safety check to satisfy itself that any issues with the electrics had been fully resolved, which in turn may have provided the resident with the reassurance she was seeking.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 September 2023, after receiving the stage 1 complaint response. The resident stated that the electrical sockets and switches around the property needed replacing, were dangerous, and could not be touched. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have responded by instructing an electrical safety check, in line with its responsive repairs policy. However, there is no evidence that it did.
  6. The resident raised concerns again about the electrics on 16 October 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection for its Maintenance Surveyor. Although an inspection was carried out on 18 October 2023, the Maintenance Surveyor went on leave before submitting the inspection report and recommendations, leaving the matter unresolved. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 November 2023, was more positive. The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident was experiencing issues with the electrical sockets in the property. It committed to arranging an inspection by another Maintenance Surveyor, as part of the complaint resolution.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 15 November 2023. According to the inspection report, recommendations were made to test the electrics throughout the property to ensure they were safe, to repair or replace a double plug in one of the bedrooms, and to repair or replace a light switch. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify whether these were outstanding works from March 2023, or new issues.
  9. The landlord may have completed all of the electrical repairs in March 2023, previously identified by the single joint expert. But the landlord failed to provide the resident with timely reassurance about the status of these repairs. It missed opportunities to inspect the electrical sockets itself or arrange an electrical safety check, after the resident’s insisted that the job was not complete and the electrics were unsafe to touch. Ultimately, the landlord did identify issues with the electrics when it attended on 15 November 2023, which the landlord might have resolved earlier. 
  10. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about faulty electrical sockets, and its handling of associated repairs.
  11. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, arising from the failings identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate.
  2. When considered cumulatively, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the following matters were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues, and its handling of associated repairs.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs about an ant infestation, and its handling of associated repairs.

c.      The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a faulty fire door, and its handling of associated repairs.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

a.     Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak under the kitchen sink, and its handling of associated repairs.

b.     Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a faulty communal door intercom, and its handling of associated repairs.

c.      Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade.

d.     Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about faulty electrical sockets, and its handling of associated repairs.

e.     Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay compensation of £610 directly to the resident, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:

a.     £100 compensation, in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak under the kitchen sink, and its handling of associated repairs.

b.     £260 compensation, in recognition of the likely distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a faulty communal door intercom, and its handling of associated repairs.

c.      £50 compensation, in recognition of the likely inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade.

d.     £200 compensation, in recognition of the likely distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about faulty electrical sockets, and its handling of associated repairs.

  1. The landlord must satisfy itself that it did act on the recommendations of its surveyor on 15 November 2023, in relation to the kitchen sink, the electrics, and repairs to the bathroom. The landlord must confirm its findings to the resident in writing. In the event that further action is required, the landlord must provide the resident with an action plan, with expected timescales for action, as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should satisfy itself that its complaint handlers are aware to identify any issue raised in a complaint, which may impact the health and safety of the resident or others, promptly. The landlord should ensure that it has appropriate procedures in place for complaint handlers to escalate such matters to the appropriate service area, in a timely manner, alongside any complaint investigation being carried out.
  2. The landlord should review it handling of repairs to the kitchen sink, electrics, and repairs to the bathroom, following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified, it should consider making a further award of compensation.