Southern Housing (202119657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119657

Southern Housing

20 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the flooring.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident lives there with her children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for this resident.
On 17 May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that water was seeping into the property from the garden and was damaging the lounge floor. The water was entering under the patio door in the resident’s lounge, and the linoleum floor covering had torn.
The landlord visited the property on 24 May 2021 to inspect the flooring. On an unknown date in late 2021, the landlord visited and removed some of the paving slabs in the garden. It also installed a drain to stop any ground water leaking into the resident’s lounge. On 9 November 2021, the landlord requested for its contractor to carry out repair works to the resident’s floor.
On 24 November 2021, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to make a complaint. The resident told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak which had caused damage to her flooring. The resident requested compensation for distress and inconvenience.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repairs. It agreed to pay the resident £375, which was the original cost of the flooring, and said it had raised a new works order for the repair works to take place. It did not provide a date for when it would complete the work.
On 23 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that the flooring had still not been fixed. The landlord apologised and said it would get back to the resident with an update. A works order was raised on 26 June 2022 to inspect and repair the resident’s floor and the patio door cill. The resident requested further updates on 7 July 2022 and on 19 October 2022.
On 20 March 2023, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to ask it to respond to the complaint under stage 2 of its complaints process. We outlined that the resident was seeking a repair of the flooring because it was rotting and had sunk. We also told the landlord that the resident had requested compensation for the delay and for distress and inconvenience.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord visited the resident to inspect the floor. It noted that:
1. There was defective mastic under the external cill of the patio door.
2. The resident’s linoleum flooring had torn. This might have been because there was a cold spot by the patio door which had made the lino brittle.
3. There was a noticeable dip in the floor.
4. The drain needed to be cleared.
5. There was no sign of mould on the floor.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord requested that the following works be completed:
1. The wooden cill on the inside of the patio door needed to be lifted so the subfloor can be inspected.
2. The sunken floor needed to be repaired and the cill replacing.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It accepted that it had managed the resident’s repair “poorly” and was disappointed to see that the work order that had been raised in July 2022 had been cancelled by the contractor. It apologised that the repair “fell off its radar.” It stated it had made an appointment for 6 June 2023 so it could complete the repairs. It offered the resident additional compensation of £280. This was broken down as:
1. £125 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
2. £60 for the failure to repair the floor in a reasonable time.
3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
4. £15 for its failure to follow its process when escalating the complaint.
5. £15 for repeat appointments.
6. £15 for the delay in sending its stage 2 to the resident.
On 28 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to us because the flooring still had not been repaired. The resident was seeking a repair of the floor and additional compensation for distress and inconvenience. As of the resident’s last update to this Service on 16 February 2025, the flooring had not been repaired.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the flooring

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the floor in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s repair policy says that the resident is responsible for repairs to floor coverings that have been provided by the resident.
The landlord’s repair policy also states that it will complete routine, non-emergency, repairs within 20 working days. If it needs more time, it will keep the resident up to date with the reasons for the delay.
When the resident first reported the flooring damage, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting. It returned in late 2021 to install a drain outside of the patio door to stop the water ingress. The landlord’s records do not clearly state when this took place, but it is evident that it took place beyond the landlord’s time frame for non-emergency repairs. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience the resident who had to chase the landlord for updates.
The evidence suggests that the landlord did raise works orders with its contractors on at least 3 occasions, but the works were either cancelled or not completed. It is not evident that the landlord had appropriately robust systems in place to monitor the repairs and detect the incorrect cancellation. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately engage with its contractors to make sure that the resident’s floor was repaired. The resident expressed her distress at the condition of the floor and the landlord did not go far enough to show it was taking the repair seriously.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations by providing meaningful updates. The resident had to take time to contact the landlord to ask when the repair would be carried out which caused inconvenience. When the landlord did update the resident, it was vague on the progress of the repair which caused further distress.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord reimbursed the resident for the cost of the linoleum flooring. It explained that usually floor coverings are the responsibility of the resident, but that it would cover the cost on this occasion. This was an appropriate use of its discretion. However, the landlord did not consider any compensation for the time the resident had been waiting for the work to be completed, which was a missed opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it accepted that it had poorly managed the resident’s repair report. It outlined that it was disappointed that the 2022 works order had been cancelled by its contractor because of its own failure to respond. It assured the resident it would attend on 6 June 2023 to carry out the repair. While we appreciate the landlord’s candour, it is disappointing to note that it did not follow through on its promise to repair the flooring. This was a further failure of service.
At the time of this report, the flooring has not been repaired, which has undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. The resident has explained that the delay has impacted her mental health, and she was worried about her young child learning to walk on the damaged floor. The landlord has exceeded its time frame for non-urgent repairs by almost 4 years, which is a significant failing.
The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s floor amounts to maladministration. This is because:
1. The repair was not completed within policy time frames.
2. The resident was not given meaningful updates and needed to chase the landlord, which caused inconvenience.
3. It did not effectively engage with its contractors to ensure that the works orders were completed.
4. The resident was distressed by the condition of the flooring and worried about the wellbeing of her young child.
In relation to the flooring, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £575, made up of:
1. £375 as a reimbursement for the cost of the damaged flooring.
2. £125 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
3. £60 for the failure to repair the floor in a reasonable time.
4. £15 for repeat appointments.
While it is noted that the landlord has made some attempt to resolve the matter by offering compensation, it has not gone far enough to fully reflect the resident’s experience. The length of time the resident’s had had to live with the damaged flooring, the distress the resident reported, and the continued failure to complete remedial works after the resident had complained are aggravating factors. We consider that the landlord should offer the resident £990, this replaces the previous compensation offer made my the landlord. This is broken down as:
1. £375 to reimburse the cost of the damaged flooring.
2. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
3. £200 for failure to complete the repair in a reasonable time.
4. £15 for repeat appointments.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The complaint will then be reviewed by a panel, a complaint response will be provided within 10 working days. If the landlord needs more time to respond to a complaint, it will write to the resident explaining the reasons
The resident first complained via our service on 21 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 December 2021 and responded on 22 December 2021. This was outside of the landlord’s policy time frames. On 8 December 2021 and 14 December 2021, the landlord outlined it needed more time to response. Its response was provided within the extended timeframe which was appropriate.
The resident told us that she escalated her complaint to stage 2 on an unknown date in 2021, but no evidence has been provided by the resident or the landlord to confirm when this took place or what basis the complaint was escalated on. Without this information, we cannot assess whether the landlord received this contact or took appropriate steps to respond.
On 20 March 2023, we escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the resident’s behalf. The resident told us that the repair had not been completed, and the landlord had not responded to her complaint. She requested that the landlord repair the floor and offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 March 2023, it stated its panel would meet on 24 April 2023 and a decision would be made by 10 May 2023. The landlord later extended the deadline to 16 May 2023, which it met.
In its stage 2, the landlord outlined that it was sorry that it had not correctly escalated the resident’s complaint due to an administrative error. The landlord offered the resident compensation for its complaint handling. This was:
1. £50 for poor complaint handling.
2. £15 for its failure to follow its process when escalating the complaint.
3. £15 for the delay in sending its stage 2 to the resident.
We consider that the compensation put forward by the landlord is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The landlord has been candid about where it considers it has failed to act appropriately. The landlord identified and acknowledged this before our investigation began and took initiative to make an offer to put things right. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £80 for its handling of the resident’s complaint, is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £990 for its failings in relation to the flooring. £575 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on the repairs required in relation to the damaged flooring. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when repairs will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £80 compensation in relation to its complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.