From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Southern Housing (202209842)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209842

Southern Housing

21 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a shared ownership scheme. The landlord is the freeholder for the property. The landlord recorded the resident has having vulnerable household members due to age and unspecified disabilities.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report a leak from the property above in September 2019. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  3. On the 28 November 2022, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to outline concerns about the issues with leaks from the property above. They said the issue was causing damp problems within the property. The landlord and the resident’s solicitor arranged for inspections of the property. The inspections took place in February 2023. Both inspections concluded the damp issues and damage in the property was likely being caused by a leak from the property above. The resident in the property above was a leaseholder. The notes from the landlord’s inspection stated the leaseholder in the property above was responsible for resolving the leak.
  4. The landlord sought to inspect the property above in February 2023 and recorded the visit as “no access”. It is unclear what follow up it did at the time.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 March 2024. She said she was unhappy the issue was ongoing, and asked for compensation for the time taken to resolve the leak.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024. It said it had provided a dehumidifier and at its emergency visit had established the leak was coming from the property above. It said it needed to gain access to the property above in order to investigate the cause of the leak. It apologised for the “unsatisfactory service” the resident had received and offered £200 in compensation. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 May 2024 and made an increased offer of £965 in compensation.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2024 and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint investigation. She said she had not received an update about the repairs.
  8. The landlord completed repairs to the property above to resolve the leaks in July 2024 (the exact date is unclear). The resident chased it about remedial repairs in her property in August and September 2023.
  9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 3 October 2024 and said it:
    1. Acknowledged there were delays in resolving the leak from the property above.
    2. Was unable to “review” the works managed by its disrepair team as they were done within a “legal remit”.
    3. Planned to inspect her property that month to identify any remedial repair works needed as a result of the leak.
    4. Apologised for the “prolonged” issues and said it should have offered support to her sooner.
    5. Apologised investigations were not “fully complete[d]” during the stage 1 complaint, and for the delay in opening the stage 2 complaint.
    6. Was increasing its offer of compensation to £1,240. This included £150 for errors in its complaint handling.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The resident reported a leak from the property above on 28 November 2024. The landlord identified water leaks from “3 separate locations at least” when it inspected in December 2024.
  2. The resident contacted us on 13 December 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had done some remedial works but the quality was “poor”. She was concerned that the leak from the property above had started again.
  3. The landlord completed the remedial works in the resident’s property in January 2025.
  4. The landlord wrote to the leaseholder in the property above on 17 February 2025. It said it was trying to get access to their property to investigate the source of the leak. It is unclear whether the inspection went ahead at that time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. It is not disputed the leak from the property above was ongoing since 2019. We have seen no evidence the resident raised the issue as a formal complaint before her complaint of March 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of matters covering the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint.
  2. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme. Our Scheme states we may only consider as matters that were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising
  3. The landlord sent its final complaint response in October 2024. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is so we can fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint and the actions it said it would take in its final response.
  4. When she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her physical health and mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  5. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that she is responsible for repairs within her property. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof and structure of the property.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states for non emergency repairs it aims to complete them “as soon as possible”. For emergency repairs it aims to attend within 6 hours to complete a “make safe” repair.
  3. When the resident raised a concern about the ongoing leak, through her solicitor, in November 2022, the landlord inspected. While appropriate to do so, it was unreasonable that this took place in February 2023, 3 months after she reported concerns. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in her property. The unreasonable delay may have increased the distress she experienced. This is of particular concern considering it was on notice about issue for a significant period of time up to that point.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord also sought to inspect the property above in February 2023, which was appropriate. The notes reflect it was unable to access the property. We have not been provided with any evidence the landlord followed up on this issue at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. Considering the serious nature of the issue, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in seeking to gain access and inspect the property above.
  5. It is not disputed the property above was the source of the leak. It is also accepted that, as a leaseholder, the resident in the property above was responsible for repairs within their property. The evidence shows the landlord found it difficult to engage with the resident above about the repairs This contributed to the complexity of the repair, and the time it took to resolve the matter. While it is evident the landlord was not responsible for the repair, it is clear the landlord should have been more proactive in seeking to gain access to the property above. It should have written to the resident above and issued them warnings. If they did not respond to the warnings then the landlord should have considered legal action to obtain a court order so it could access the property and carry out the repairs, charging the cost back to the leaseholder.
  6. We have seen no evidence that the landlord sought to gain access to the property above between its attempt in February 2023, and its later attempts in March 2024 (after the resident complained). This is concerning considering it had done nothing to satisfy itself the matter was resolved. While it is noted there was a gap in the resident reporting the issue. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to take appropriate action to satisfy itself the matter was resolved before closing it.
  7. In an internal email on 5 February 2025, the landlord accepted calls to the resident were “not logged”. The same email claimed it made “numerous attempts” to ask the leaseholder in the property above to remedy the leaks. None of the referenced contact is evidenced in the information provided. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. Considering it has not provided evidence of its attempts to resolve the matter during this period, we do not consider the claims made in the email as evidence it took any appropriate action at the time. The landlord should have kept records of its attempts to gain access to the neighbouring property to support any legal action it may have needed to take. The landlord would be expected to show the court evidence that it had attempted to gain access informally before taking legal action.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge the length of time it was on notice about the issue. This was inappropriate and lacked transparency. The information available shows the landlord’s own inspection in February 2023 established the cause of the leak was the property above. For the stage 1 complaint response to suggest it had only established this in April 2024 was inaccurate. We welcome the fact the landlord recognised this error and made an increased offer of compensation in May 2024.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord sought to learn from the outcomes of the case and was more proactive in trying to gain access to the property above from April 2024. This was appropriate and evidence it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It is noted the landlord still had difficulty in gaining access. This means the further delay was somewhat outside of its control. What is also apparent is that the landlord’s communication with the resident at the time was poor. It failed to provide her with regular updates about its progress. She was inconvenienced by the need to chase it for an update in June 2024.
  10. We welcome the fact the landlord took responsibility for the repairs (due to the difficulties in engaging the leaseholder of the property above). This is evidence it sought to reduce the impact on the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take responsibility for the repairs from February 2023. This is considering the fact it was on notice about the issue for several years at that time, and it had become apparent it was causing significant repair issues within the resident’s property. The resident may reasonably have experienced increased distress and inconvenience because of the delay.
  11. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain it would inspect the resident’s property and complete remedial works following the leak. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We welcome the fact the landlord went beyond its usual repair responsibilities in order to try and put things right for the resident.
  12. The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response were inappropriate. It said it was “unable to review the works” in its complaint response as they were carried out by the disrepair team under a “legal remit”. This lacked transparency and inconvenienced the resident. We would not expect the landlord to share legal advice within its complaint response. But we would expect it to set out what repairs it had completed. This would be unlikely to prejudice any future legal action, and would provide the resident with its latest position on the matters subject to the complaint.
  13. It inconvenienced the resident by not setting out what repairs it had completed, and lacked learning. If the landlord was unable to provide further information in its complaint response, it could have said in the response that it would arrange separate contact through its disrepair team to answer the resident’s questions.
  14. The landlord made an increased offer of £1,090 in compensation for its handling of the matter. This is evidence it sought to put things right for the resident, which was appropriate. However, as the remedial works within the resident’s property were outstanding this impacts on the degree to which it put things right in the circumstances.
  15. We acknowledge the landlord considered it had resolved the leak when it completed works in the property above in 2024. The resident reported a similar issue 1 month after its final complaint response. Considering the issue returned so soon, we consider appropriate to comment on the landlord’s handling of the issue after it was reported it again. It is also possible that the repair it completed was unsuccessful, considering how soon the issue returned and that the leak appeared to be coming from the same areas.
  16. The evidence shows that the resident reported the leak again in November 2024. We have seen evidence the landlord inspected on 16 December 2024 and identified “at least” 3 points of water coming into the resident’s property. Its notes stated it needed to do a “full leak investigation” of the property above. The evidence shows it wrote to the leaseholder of the property above, in order to try and gain access, on 17 February 2025.This was 2 months after its inspection and an unreasonable delay. This is evidence it failed to learn from the outcomes in the case, and failed to act with the appropriate urgency. The resident was evidently distressed the leak had returned. The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately may have increased the distress she experienced.
  17. The information provided for this investigation shows the landlord completed remedial works in the resident’s property in January 2025. This was 3 months after it had said it would do so in its stage 2 complaint response, and 5 months after she first chased it about the follow up works (in August 2024). This was an unreasonable delay that further inconvenienced the resident.
  18. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord about its latest position on the leaks from the property above. The landlord responded in March 2025 and stated it “not been made aware of any further leaks in February of this year. This may be a new leak”. This is concerning considering the landlord’s own records indicate it was on notice about the leak from November 2024, and was seeking to progress with an investigation. This is a failing in its information management and is further evidence the landlord failed to learn from the previous outcomes of the case. Its poor record keeping around the repairs can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays.
  19. The landlord must seek to complete an urgent inspection of the property above. We would expect the landlord to complete any repairs it identifies after its inspection within a reasonable timeframe, unless the leaseholder provides evidence that they have completed the repairs themself. If there are further delays in completing the repairs the resident would be entitled to raise a new complaint about this period.
  20. It is accepted the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience as a result of the leak from the property above. It is also accepted that the leaseholder in the property above was responsible for the repairs within their property. This reduces the degree to which the landlord is responsible for the negative impact the resident experienced. The fact the landlord took responsibility for the repairs, and agreed to complete repairs within the property went some way put things right. However, considering the further failings it made after its final complaint response, we have decided there was maladministration in its handling of the matter.
  21. Our remedies guidance sets out orders of compensation over £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where there have been failings by the landlord. Particularly where failures accumulated over a significant period of time that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Considering the landlord’s overall offer of compensation (£1,090) we have decided not to make orders for further compensation because the landlord has offered appropriate compensation already, through its complaints policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 24 working days after she complained. This was outside the timeframes in its complaints procedure and the Code. It was inappropriate that it did not apologise for the delay in its response. It missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right for the resident. However, it is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2024 and expressed dissatisfaction she had not had an update. She also said she had not had any contact following its stage 1 response. It was unreasonable that it did not open a stage 2 complaint at that time. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. It was unfair that it did not open a stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation until 22 August 2024, 4 months after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by being subject to a protracted complaints process.
  4. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay. It also acknowledged errors in its complaint handling at stage 1. This showed transparency and learning.
  5. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We have determined the landlord’s offer of £150 for errors in its complaint handling was appropriate to put things right for the resident in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,090 in compensation it offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the leak.
    3. Seek to inspect the property above to identity the cause of the leak.

Recommendations

  1. Pay the resident the £150 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling (if it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.