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

Southern Housing (202216747)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216747

Southern Housing

25 February 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:
    1. The level of increase in rent and service charges.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the car park gate.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a different parking space.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint raised in November 2022.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. According to paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  3. The resident is unhappy with how much the rent and service charge has increased since he moved into the property in 2017. He says that when he purchased the property the landlord carried out affordability checks. He is unhappy that it has not continued to carry out these checks when increasing the rent and service charge.
  4. In its stage 2 response of 20 January 2023 the landlord signposted the resident to The Leasehold Advisory Service for lease advice. It also told him that he could ask the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to investigate the increase. In its further stage 2 response of 11 July 2023 it reiterated that he could consider a referral to the FTT. The FTT assesses whether increases in rent and service charges are reasonable.
  5. For the reason set out above, the resident’s complaint about the level of increase in rent and service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident is a shared owner of the flat with the landlord since August 2017.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 November, in which it said that the gate had been attended to within policy timescale and a delay was due to a wait for a part. It said that it had raised an ASB case but did not have enough evidence to take any action against the resident’s neighbour. It explained that as his car parking space was part of his lease he would need to engage with a solicitor to have the lease and deeds amended.
  3. On 16 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord as he was unhappy with the response. He asked why it had not responded about the rent and service charge issue. The landlord replied, explaining that it does not consider service charge queries as complaints, in line with its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident declining to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. It said that if he remained unhappy with the service charge increase when the finalised accounts were published he could raise this with the FTT. It said that the option of mediation with his neighbour remained open and reiterated that he would have to follow the legal route to change his parking space.
  5. On 19 May 2023 the resident raised a further complaint about the service charge increase. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 June, in which it said that the increase could not be disputed and it recommended he speak to his local Citizens Advice Bureau for advice. It offered him £25 compensation for its delay in responding.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 13 June 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, in which it said that the increase was in line with government guidelines and he could refer it to the FTT if he remained unhappy.
  7. The resident contacted us on 31 October 2023 as he was not happy with the landlord’s responses and asked us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about problems with the car park gate in March 2020. Residents are expected to bring complaints to us within 12 months of the landlord issuing a final response, while they are still ‘live’ and while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. It is not clear from the information provided by both parties whether the landlord escalated that complaint to stage 2 and provided a final response. However, we would have expected the resident to escalate matters with the landlord if he remained unhappy at that time.
  2. This investigation has therefore only considered issues with the car park gate reported to the landlord in 2022. The records the landlord has provided only show one incident being reported around that time, in September 2022.
  3. When the resident raised the complaint about his car parking space, he said that he was sold the parking space on the basis that there was security in place. Residents are expected to raise a complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the issue arising. As the sale took place in August 2017, and the complaint was not raised in November 2022, this investigation will not consider any concerns about the sale of the property and the associated parking space.
  4. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  5. The landlord refused to escalate the first complaint and we have found there to be a complaint handling failure with this, which has been investigated below. We have therefore investigated the resident’s complaints about ASB and the car park gate, despite the landlord not having sent a stage 2 response to these issues.

ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will take action to stop ASB as quickly as possible. It will take a balanced approach using a combination of measures including prevention, early intervention, support and enforcement. It says it will keep the resident updated every 14 days.
  2. On 22 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had received his concern about a neighbour’s parking. It said the neighbour had been reminded of the parking conditions in place and it had raised it with the parking enforcement company.
  3. On 15 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the neighbour was persistently parking over his bay. He said that he had knocked the door to speak to the neighbour, who had been aggressive and threatened him. He had reported this to the police. The landlord confirmed on 20 July that it had opened an ASB case and would liaise with the police.
  4. The landlord updated the resident on 28 July 2022 to say that the police had been in contact to ask for more information, which the landlord had provided. The police responded on 6 August to say that they had spoken to both parties involved and advised them to avoid contact with each other. They said no criminal offence had taken place and they had no powers in relation to private parking.
  5.  On 29 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out its approach to ASB. It said that the neighbour had made counter-allegations and it believed the best way to resolve the situation would be with mediation. It provided a leaflet about the mediation service and asked the resident to consider this.
  6. The offer of mediation was a reasonable action for the landlord to take. However, it took too long to take this action. It did not update the resident every 14 days as per its policy, and it should have made this offer within 14 days of the police confirming they were taking no further action. ASB can escalate quickly, so a timely response is important.
  7. In the resident’s complaint of 25 October 2022 he said that the landlord had taken no action in respect of the ASB to protect him and his family from the neighbour. In its stage 1 response of 10 November it said that the police took no further action and it did not have any evidence to take formal action itself. It explained that the police agreed that a referral for mediation would help in this case, and this was offered. In its further response of 20 January 2023 it said the offer for mediation was still open.
  8. We have seen no evidence that the resident took the landlord up on the offer of mediation, or that he reported any further incidents of ASB. The landlord wrote to him on 10 March 2023 to say that it was closing the ASB case.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB. The landlord’s overall response to the report was proportionate, and its offer of mediation was fair. However, it did not provide this offer to the resident within a reasonable timeframe, or update him in line with its policy.
  10. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in offering mediation.

Car park gate

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will aim to complete all non-emergency repairs in 1 visit and take as little time as possible.
  2. The landlord emailed all residents in the building on 7 September 2022 to say that it had been made aware of a failure with the automatic gate to the car park. A contractor was due to attend the next day, which was a reasonable timeframe. On 9 September the landlord emailed residents to let them know that the contractor had attended the previous day and found that the control board had blown. It had obtained a quote for a replacement part and was looking to confirm the lead time. It said the gate would remain open in the meantime.
  3. The landlord emailed all residents on 27 September 2022 to let them know that the damaged control board was replaced on 20 September. However, the contractor found that some remotes programmed to the old board would not work with the new board. It had initially tried to retrieve the data, which was a reasonable step, but this had failed. It was now looking to book in a date to reprogram inoperable remotes.
  4. On 30 September 2022 the landlord emailed all residents to say a contractor would attend on 5 October and asked them to bring affected remotes to the office. It was reasonable for the landlord to give the residents some notice of the need to do this.
  5. The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the car park gate. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend promptly and it was unavoidable that a part needed to be ordered. It was also unavoidable that the remotes needed to be reprogrammed, and the landlord did what it could to try to avoid this being necessary. The landlord kept residents updated throughout the ongoing repairs and, given the need for parts and reprogramming remotes, the repair did not take an unreasonable amount of time.

Parking space

  1. The resident’s lease states that the property includes parking space number 8.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2021 to say that he was not happy with the parking space he had as he did not feel his car was safe. He said there were no cameras in that corner of the car park and asked what other spaces were available for him to choose from. The landlord responded the same day to say it would make enquiries, but that it may not be a straightforward process due to the space being subject to a legal agreement.
  3. On 1 July 2021 the landlord told the resident that it had done an audit of the parking spaces and may be able to reallocate his. It said that he would need to instruct a solicitor as it would require a variation to the legal title and the resident would need to pay the associated legal costs. The resident responded to say he was not happy to meet the legal costs.
  4.  On 28 July 2022, when emailing the resident about the ASB case, the landlord reiterated that legal amendments would be required for his parking space to be changed. In his complaint of 25 October the resident said that he did not feel he should have to bear the cost of legal work to change his parking space. He felt that due to the ASB and security issues, it was not his fault that he wanted to change spaces.
  5. In its stage 1 response of 10 November 2022, the landlord again said that as the parking space was part of his lease, it would require engagement with a solicitor, and he would be responsible for the cost. In its further response of 20 January 2023, the landlord reiterated that the parking space was part of the lease and he would have to follow the legal route.
  6. The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a different parking space. The parking space is listed on the lease, and so the lease would need to be changed to reflect a change of space.
  7. We appreciate the resident’s concerns that led to him requesting a new parking space. However, as it is the resident that wants this change, we cannot say that the landlord should have to bear the legal costs for this change.

Complaint handling

  1. 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.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days, and send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It says that the resident must request escalation to stage 2 within 20 working days of its stage 1 response.
  3. At both complaint stages the policy says that it can extend the deadline if this is agreed and explained to the resident. The complaints policy explains that concerns about rent/service charges will be raised as a query, rather than a complaint.
  4. The resident raised the first complaint on 25 October 2022. No evidence has been provided by the landlord that it acknowledged the complaint. It sent its stage 1 response on 10 November, 12 working days after it was raised, slightly outside its policy timescale.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 16 November 2022, clearly expressing that he remained unhappy. He also asked why the landlord did not address his concerns about rent and service charge increases. The landlord responded to say that it did not consider service charge queries as complaints, but did not clarify whether he wanted the rest of the complaint issues escalating, which it should have done.
  6. The resident contacted us as he had no response, and we asked the landlord to respond on 17 January 2023. It wrote to the resident on 20 January saying it would not be escalating the complaint because he had not escalated it within the required 20 working days. This was an inappropriate response, as he had contacted it on 16 November 2022.
  7. The landlord also declined to escalate the complaint as it said that moving the complaint to stage 2 would not get him what he wanted in relation to the parking space. While its response may have remained the same as its stage 1 response, this was not an appropriate reason to decline escalation, as the resident was entitled to have the decision reviewed.
  8. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to acknowledge that the resident remained dissatisfied after its stage 1 response and did not escalate the complaint. When we contacted the landlord to request escalation it did not identify that the resident had responded to its stage 1 letter, and unreasonably refused to escalate the complaint.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 refusal letter implied that it did not need to escalate the complaint because the outcome would not change. This was not an appropriate response, and a landlord’s belief that its stage 1 response is correct does not mean that a stage 2 response is not required.
  10. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its refusal to escalate the first complaint. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £175.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level of increase in rent and service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the car park gate.
    3. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a different parking space.
    4. Maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £275, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB.
    2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance within 28 days of this report.