Southern Housing (202318488)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318488

Southern Housing

27 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The standard of maintenance in the resident’s building, including:
  1. Her concerns about health and safety.
  2. Her concerns that the landlord was charging for services it did not provide, such as grounds maintenance and communal window cleaning.
  3. Communal cleaning.
2. The reasonableness and level of service charges for the services provided, including service charge increases.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints about the level of service charges, or the amount of any service charge increases. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal, or other procedure.
The resident has raised a number of concerns about the service charges for her property. This included the calculation, accuracy, and reasonableness of the charges, and the level of service charge increases. She also said she wants to remove the landlord as the manager of the building. Those complaints do not fall within our remit, and would be for the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to determine.
As such, the resident’s complaints about the level and reasonableness of the service charges or service charge increases are outside of our jurisdiction. This includes the following parts of her complaint:
1. The calculation of the charges, including the estimated charges and requests for the charges and estimates to be recalculated.
2. Reported inaccuracies in the service charge statements, and dissatisfaction that the landlord has not reviewed the accounts line by line.
3. The level and increase of the management charge.
4. Reported duplicate jobs, incomplete jobs, and commercial unit costs being included in the service charges.
5. Liability for lift costs.
6. Liability and increases for fire prevention costs.
Due to the above, any discussion of service charges in this investigation will be limited to instances where the resident says the landlord charged for a service that it never provided (such as grounds maintenance and window cleaning).

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease. The landlord manages the building. This is paid for through a variable service charge of which the resident pays a set percentage of the overall cost. The landlord provides a service charge estimate at the start of each year and determines the actual cost at the end of the year.
On 5 and 12 April 2023, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s maintenance of the building. She said every aspect had been substandard and had not met either health and safety or building regulations. She asked the landlord to provide maintenance schedules and job lists for every service provided in the 2 years leading up to her complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 May 2023. It said:
1. Its estate services team inspected the building every month. The most recent inspection was on 20 April 2023. All internal areas were of a good standard at the inspection, save for some carpet stains which it referred to its cleaning team.
2. Its cleaning team cleaned the communal areas every Tuesday. They also cleaned the windows quarterly, and did a deep clean once per year.
3. It accepted it had charged for grounds maintenance when there were no grounds to maintain. It said it would refund any charges up to 2021-22, and would refund any charges for 2022-23 when it prepared the end of year accounts.
4. It was willing to provide the schedules for all works it completed, but it would take time to do so due to the amount of information requested. It aimed to provide the remaining information by 26 May 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2023. She raised a large number of concerns related to the service charges and related increases. She also said she did not believe the cleaners completed all of the tasks on their list, there had never been a yearly deep clean, and they had never cleaned the windows.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It said:
1. It would look into her ongoing concerns about the service charge accounts via a service charge dispute. In the meantime, it answered some of the questions she raised when escalating her complaint.
2. The cleaning in communal areas met the required standard, but it could bring the next deep clean forward if she wanted it to do so.
3. It could not provide the schedules promised in the stage 1 response, as it did not have them in place for the building. It apologised for giving incorrect information in the stage 1 response.
4. It would provide her with evidence the window cleaning took place, and invited her to the next estate inspection.
5. The communal lift was out of action for a total of 27 days in 2022. It said it would offer discretionary compensation for this. The compensation offer included no compensation related to the communal lifts.
6. It accepted there were times it did not answer her queries as quickly as it should have. It said the property manager would work with residents to resolve issues going forward.
7. It offered £45 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £15 for providing incorrect information in the stage 1 response.
  2. £15 for its failure to provide an update by the date stated in the stage 1 response.
  3. £15 for delays in responding to calls or emails.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us. She said:
1. All building maintenance was substandard.
2. The landlord was charging residents for services it had not provided.
3. She would like to remove the landlord as the manager of the property.
4. She had requested multiple works schedules and for safety works to be completed. She said the landlord sent operatives and charged for works it had never completed.
5. Managers never told residents when they were on site.
6. The landlord regularly cancelled meetings with a resident action group and failed to complete tasks on the related action list.
7. The landlord had reviewed some of the financial years’ service charge invoices and offered refunds for inappropriate charges, but refused to investigate every service provided.
8. The landlord raised a separate complaint related to her reports of financial mismanagement.

Group complaint

The resident says she brought this complaint on behalf of a number of households in the block, and that it must be treated as a group complaint. We have discretion under the Scheme to accept a complaint from a group where all affected households give consent, and where all residents are affected in the same way.
While the resident’s complaint indicated that other residents were affected by the issues raised, she did not state she was making a group complaint. The landlord has not treated the complaint as a group complaint, and the redress offered is for inconvenience the resident experienced, rather than for all residents in the building. This means we cannot consider this as a group complaint. However, the resident may choose to show this determination to the other affected residents, should she wish to do so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Scheme says we cannot look into complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process, or which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable time (usually 12 months).
The resident raised a number of concerns when referring her complaint to us. Some of those concerns were not part of her complaint to the landlord, and were raised for the first time when she escalated her complaint. Others happened after the stage 2 response. Any parts of the resident’s complaint to us which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process, or are about events more than 12 months before her complaint, will not be considered as part of this investigation. This includes:
1. Concerns about the landlord’s handling of sewage in the communal area.
2. The format of the service charge statements.
3. Issues with the lift.
4. The landlord’s dealings with the resident action group.
5. The landlord’s handling of her request for 2 years’ worth of information about the service charges and its management of the building.
When making her complaint, the resident made a number of generalised statements about the service the landlord had provided. It is important for a landlord to know when its residents are not happy with its services. However, it is difficult to respond to general statements of dissatisfaction. This is because general views are inherently subjective, and cannot be compared to specific obligations in the lease or relevant legal authority. As such, this investigation will only focus on the specific areas of the landlord’s service which were raised during the complaint, and whether it responded reasonably to those concerns.

Building maintenance – health and safety

While the resident has referred to general breaches of health and safety regulations and building standards, she has not specified any regulation or building standard which she says the landlord has not complied with. We have also seen no evidence of such concerns being raised prior to her complaint.
The landlord told the resident that it carried out monthly inspections of the building and communal areas. It said the most recent inspection at the time of its stage 1 response was on 20 April 2023. It said the person who did the inspection reported that all internal areas were of a good standard, save for some carpet staining.
The landlord’s inspection reports show it inspected the building each month in the 12 months leading up to the complaint. It inspected the outside areas on each occasion, and the internal areas on 7 of the 12 occasions (including every month for the 5 months leading up to the complaint). It did not inspect the internal areas every time due to problems with an access fob.
The landlord appropriately assessed the health and safety inside the building during each internal inspection. This included lighting, fire safety, and any general health and safety concerns. When it identified any issues, it completed a risk assessment and logged repairs. There is no evidence in the inspection reports of any significant or ongoing health and safety issues prior to the resident’s complaint.
It would have been better practice for the landlord to re-book the inspections for the months its fob did not work to access the building rather than waiting for the next inspection date. It has confirmed it did not do so. However, we have seen no evidence of any detriment this caused the resident. This is because there is no required inspection frequency under the terms of the lease, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord received any reports of specific health and safety concerns during that time.
The only specific health and safety issues raised by the resident, rather than general dissatisfaction, were fire safety and sewage in a communal courtyard. While concerns about sewage were raised during the stage 2 panel meeting, neither sewage nor fire safety formed part of the resident’s original complaint. As such, these specific issues have not completed the complaints process, and fall outside of the scope of this investigation.

Building maintenance – grounds maintenance

The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that it had charged the resident for grounds maintenance when there were no grounds to maintain. It said this happened because it was under the impression there would be a small, paved area to manage, so included maintenance costs in its original estimate. It said it only became aware of the error when preparing the end of year accounts, and this overlapped with it preparing the next year’s accounts.
The landlord apologised for its error, and confirmed that it would refund any grounds maintenance charges. The 2020–21 and 2021-22 end of year accounts show that while there was an estimated cost for grounds maintenance, the final sum the landlord charged for each year was £0. The landlord has therefore refunded any grounds maintenance charges for those years.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it would refund the charges for 2022–23. Its internal emails on 3 May 2023 also show it intended to amend the estimated charges for 2023–24 as a result. However, it has not provided evidence to show it refunded the 2022–23 costs. It also told us on 26 February 2025 that it had not refunded grounds maintenance for the 2023–24 accounts. This was despite intending to do so almost 2 years ago.
The landlord told us it will now remove the grounds maintenance costs from the 2023–24 accounts and send revised letters to residents. However, its ongoing inclusion of the costs almost 2 years after it originally said it would remove them shows it has failed to learn from this complaint.

Building maintenance – communal cleaning

The landlord’s communal cleaning specification sets out the tasks its cleaners are supposed to complete. It confirmed in its complaint response that its cleaners clean the communal areas weekly, and it reviews the standard of the cleaning at its monthly inspection.
The resident does not dispute that the cleaners have attended and carried out some cleaning. She says they have not carried out all of the cleaning they are meant to, and they have never carried out a deep clean.
We have seen no evidence of the resident raising specific concerns about the standard or frequency of the cleaning prior to her complaint. The landlord’s inspection reports show it assessed the standard of the cleaning on multiple occasions in the 12 months leading up to the complaint, and every month in the 5 months leading up to the complaint. On each of those inspections, the landlord scored the internal cleaning as ‘satisfactory’. Its contractors also confirmed to the landlord that they carried out a deep clean in December 2022.
A landlord is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors. In this case, its contractors did not provide any evidence related to their weekly cleaning visits prior to the complaint. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the cleaners carry out their work to a satisfactory standard by completing its own inspection and assessment of their work. While it did not inspect the cleaning every month as a result of access issues, we have seen no evidence of any residents raising concerns about the standard of the cleaning prior to this complaint. As such, there is no evidence of any reports to prompt any further investigation. We have also seen evidence that the landlord scored the cleaning as ‘satisfactory’ on every inspection.
The evidence we have seen demonstrates that the cleaners did attend and carry out communal cleaning, and the landlord took relevant steps to ensure the service was both provided and up to its expected standard. Any disagreement about the standard of the cleaning and the associated service charges would be a dispute as to the reasonableness of the charge for the service provided, which is outside of our remit.

Building maintenance – window cleaning

The resident said that the landlord had not completed any communal window cleaning prior to her complaint. The landlord said in its complaint response that its contractors cleaned the windows quarterly. It said the most recent clean was in February 2023, and it had the next clean scheduled for 20 May 2023.
When the landlord provided its evidence to us, it sent a copy of the window cleaning report from February 2023, which included details of the work done. The only photo in the report showed the glass in the front door. That area was part of the weekly cleaning, not part of the window cleaning (which was charged separately on the service charge statements). It was unreasonable for the landlord to tell the resident its cleaners had cleaned the communal windows when the evidence shows this was not the case.
The landlord identified the same issue with the report after the resident escalated her complaint. It said the report indicated that the cleaners were not cleaning the communal windows, and she would be entitled to a refund of that part of the service charges if so. It told her in its stage 2 response that it was awaiting evidence of the window cleaning, and that it would share any evidence it received.
The landlord’s records show it became aware on 24 July 2023 that the block was not on its contractors’ schedule for window cleaning. Its contractors confirmed on 31 August 2023 that they could not find any evidence of ever cleaning the windows in the block. The landlord has provided no evidence of updating the resident, despite its promise to do so in its stage 2 response.
After reviewing the evidence related to the window cleaning, we asked the landlord to provide some further information and clarification. It has now confirmed it has no records of any communal window cleaning taking place prior to the complaint. It is unreasonable for the landlord to charge the resident for a service it has not provided.
The landlord told us that there was a lack of internal communication regarding the window cleaning, which meant it had not instructed its service charge team to reimburse the cost. It said it will now reimburse all residents for window cleaning charges from the last 3 years. However, it has not mentioned any refunds for the 2020-21 or 2021-22 accounts, showing it has not learned from the complaint.
It is apparent from the evidence provided that if the landlord had appropriately investigated the resident’s reports about the window cleaning, it would have known before its stage 1 response that it had been charging the resident for a service it had never provided. It also knew with certainty at the end of August 2023 that this was the case. It then inexplicably failed to take any steps to refund the charges until contacted by the Ombudsman in 2025. While it has apologised to us, it has not apologised to the resident.
Overall, the landlord has unreasonably charged the resident for a service it never provided, and then failed to learn from the complaint and put things right. We have considered what it needs to do to put things right below.

Summary – building maintenance

Overall, the landlord’s failings with regard to building maintenance are as follows:
1. A failure to book replacement inspection dates for the 5 of 12 monthly inspections it could not access the inside of the building.
2. Charging the resident for grounds maintenance it never provided, and failing to update the accounts for years other than 2020–21 and 2021–22 following the complaint.
3. Charging the resident for communal window cleaning services it never provided.
4. Giving the resident inaccurate information about the communal window cleaning, failing to provide promised updates, and failing to take steps to refund the charges until after we asked for further information.
As a result of those failings, we find there has been maladministration. We have therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
In addition to a written apology, the landlord must refund the service charges for grounds maintenance from the 2020-21 financial year onwards (for the years it has not already done so). It must also review all window cleaning costs in its service charge accounts from the 2020-21 financial year onwards, and refund the resident for all window cleaning charges up to the point it started providing the relevant service.
To avoid any confusion as to what it has refunded, it must also write to her to confirm the amount refunded and how it calculated the refund. It must also provide updated service charge statements.
The landlord must also pay the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failings, and the time and trouble taken to resolve the issues. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which have an adverse effect on a resident, but no permanent impact. This is in addition to the £15 compensation for delayed communication offered in the stage 2 response.
It must also arrange refresher training for its service charge and estate management teams to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling

Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord is required to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 29 working days after the complaint, which was outside of the timescales set out in the Code. However, it told the resident on 5 May 2023 that the delay was because of the time it took to gather the information she had requested.
When the resident made her complaint, she requested significant amounts of information from the landlord. We have seen no evidence to show she ever requested this information before her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to use the complaints process to provide as much of the requested information as possible. It was therefore reasonable for it to extend the time for a response, and it complied with the extended deadline it gave the resident.
When it issued its stage 1 response, it tried to provide the requested information, and told the resident it would aim to send the remaining schedules by 26 May 2023. However, it was unable to provide those schedules, as it did not have planned maintenance schedules for the building. It did not explain this to her until after the deadline had passed.
The landlord has acknowledged that it gave incorrect information and missed the deadline stated in its stage 1 response. It apologised to the resident, and offered £30 compensation (£15 for the incorrect information, and £15 for missing the deadline).
We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord’s error caused any specific detriment to the resident, or affected the overall outcome. The compensation offered is in line with our published remedies guidance for service failures which do not significantly affect the overall outcome. As the landlord has apologised and offered adequate compensation, we find there has been a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling. It therefore does not need to do anything else to put this right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s maintenance of the building.
In accordance with paragraphs 42(d) and 42(f) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the reasonableness and level of services charges, including increases in service charges, is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling that is enough to put things right.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from a member of the landlord’s senior management team.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the failings set out in this report. This is in addition to the £15 offered for delayed communication during its complaints process.
3. Refund the resident for all communal window cleaning service charges from her purchase of the property up to the date the first communal window cleaning took place.
4. Refund the resident for all grounds maintenance service charges it charged her from her purchase of the property up to today’s date.
5. Write to the resident to confirm the total sum refunded from the service charges and how it calculated the refund. It must also provide the resident with updated service charge statements to evidence the refunds above.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to arrange refresher training for its service charge and estate management teams, using this complaint as a case study, to prevent its failings being repeated in the future.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £30 compensation offered for its complaint handling failings within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is dependent on this payment being made.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to offer the compensation for lift outages it referred to in its stage 2 response, but did not include in the compensation offer.
It is recommended that the landlord contact all of its leaseholders and shared owners in the block to provide the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Service charge refunds for grounds maintenance and any communal window cleaning which did not take place. This should be for all financial years the landlord collected a service charge.
2. A copy of the updated service charge accounts following the above refunds.
3. A written explanation for why it charged residents for services that were never provided, an explanation for how it will ensure it does not do so in future, and a written apology.
The landlord should write to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report to let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendations.