Southern Housing (202229907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229907

Southern Housing

10 June 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:
1. the residents report of a broken boiler.
2. the residents request for repairs to be completed, including:
  1. the lounge blind.
  2. a defective fridge freezer.
  3. the communal lift.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 30 November 2020. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with their child, who has difficulty with sensory processing.
On 25 February 2022, the resident reported they were without heat and hot water. The contractor inspected the boiler the next day and ordered a replacement valve. The contractor attended the property a further 5 times between 1 March and 5 April 2022. The valve was not replaced.
The evidence is unclear as to when the resident first complained to the landlord. On 5 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the boiler breakdown and lack of access to heat and hot water. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 May 2022. It said:
1. its contractor investigated the boiler and attempted repairs between 26 February and 5 May 2022.
2. it provided the resident space heaters, and it said the resident had access to an immersion boiler.
3. it upheld the complaint and offered £118 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to fix the boiler.
On 16 May 2022, the resident requested the landlord fix the lounge blinds.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord internally recognised the resident had not accepted its stage 1 response. On 20 December 2022, it told the resident it would restart the complaint process.
The resident told the landlord on 10 January 2023, that the immersion heater and space heaters were not working and were expensive to run. The resident continued to report they had no access to heat and hot water on 16 January and 16 March 2023. They referred to our Service about this on 21 March 2023.
On 19 April 2023, the contractor fitted a valve to the boiler. And on 3 May 2023, the resident reported that their fridge freezer was not working.
On 18 May 2023, the landlord sent a new stage 1 response to the resident about the delay to fix the boiler. It upheld the complaint and said it had a plan for a permanent fix. It offered a total of £1587, made up of £553 compensation for the delay to repair the boiler, £984 to reimburse heating costs, and £50 for complaint handling. On the same date, the resident confirmed they did not agree with the outcome.
On 16 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that their fridge freezer was not working, they had been 3 months without access to the communal lift, and their lounge blinds continued to be in disrepair.
On 26 July 2023, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord upheld the complaint and said that due to multiple repairs to the heating system, it could not confirm when this was and was not working. It offered a total of £2831. This was made up of:
1. £450 for loss of hot water.
2. £976 for the use of 2 fan heaters for 244 days.
3. £15 for its failure to follow process.
4. £15 for repeat visits to resolve the outstanding issues.
5. £15 for the resident chasing for a response.
6. £15 for the landlord’s miscommunication.
7. £25 failing to respond within its own timescales.
8. £1000 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
9. £60 for the delay to replace the fridge freezer.
10. £60 for the delay to repair the blind.
11. £50 for the delay to repair the communal lift.
12. £150 for the delay providing the stage 2 response to the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 July 2023 and 7 September 2023. They confirmed their complaint is about the delay to fix the boiler, delay to replace the fridge freezer, delay to replace the lounge blind, and the delay to fix communal lift. They confirmed on 27 May 2025, that they want the landlord to cover the bill from their energy provider, which they said was due to using alternative methods to heat their home and access hot water.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says:
1. the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair installations it provides for space heating, water heating, including water heaters and central heating.
2. white goods are gifted by the landlord and any maintenance and replacements are the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy and compensation policy says:
1. if anything causes immediate risk to health and safety, it will conduct works as an emergency repair within 6 hours. It considers an emergency repair as heating loss during the period 31 October to 30 April.
2. it aims to complete repairs within 1 visit and to take as little time as possible.
3. it will provide alternative heating sources when there is a loss of heating between 31 October and 30 April and can pay £2 per day, per source.
4. the landlord will consider additional compensation if proof shows the costs to use alternative heating sources were higher than redress paid.
5. the resident is responsible for repairs and replacement of their fridge freezer, curtains, and curtain rail, including those gifted by the landlord.
The lift safety policy says:
1. if the contractor finds a defect in the lift that needs corrective action before it can be used, it will be taken out of service.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 says:
1. landlords must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy, including provision of heat and hot water.

The residents report of a broken boiler

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation.
In this case, the landlord’s and contractor records were unclear. In particular, the landlord provided different evidence and explanations about the provision of alternative heating sources, and it was unclear when the resident made a complaint. This has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
On 25 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that they had no heating or hot water. The next day, the contractor confirmed the boiler needed a new valve. In the meantime, the landlord said the resident had access to an immersion heater for hot water and 2 space heaters. It also said it left the heating in working order. The landlord’s evidence and explanations about what alternative provisions it provided to the resident were unclear.
The resident referred to the heaters and immersion boiler at a later date, as they were not heating the property. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord had provided alternative provisions to the resident. Whilst the landlord was investigating the boiler repair, it was reasonable and in line with its policies that it provided alternative heat and hot water sources.
The contractor continued to investigate issues with the boiler between 26 February and 5 May 2022. When the contractor received the boiler part, it was unable to repair it as the communal lights were not working. The delay to fix the boiler was not in line with the tenancy agreement and was not in line with the landlord’s responsible repair policy to fix the problem as an emergency.
After the initial attempt to repair the boiler, the contractor had problems retrieving the valve from its offices between 30 May and 15 July 2022.
Our Cold Comfort Spotlight report highlights findings into landlord’s approaches to lack of heating and hot water. It highlights the importance that landlords:
1. ensure operatives who visit have sufficient skills, tools and parts to undertake the work required.
2. closely monitor contractors’ performance, including any missed appointments.
3. prioritise customer care and good communication with residents.
There was no supervision by the landlord to ensure the property was in a condition for repairs to be completed. It also had not made sure the contractor retrieved the valve to complete repairs a timely way. The resident continued to report lack of heat and hot water on 8 November 2022.
The lack of preparation and oversight by the landlord to monitor progress, caused a delay. This was not reasonable and was not good practice.
Between 7 December 2022 and 10 January 2023, the resident told the landlord the flat was unfit to live in as the heating was not working. They said the heater fans were not warming the flat, were expensive to run, and they resorted to heating the flat using their oven.
The resident contacted the landlord again about the broken boiler between 16 January and 16 March 2023. The resident explained they had to use blow fans for heat as well as use boiled water to bathe.
The landlord had not investigated the resident’s reports that the alternative provisions were not heating the property. This was not in line with the tenancy agreement, and the landlord had not paid due regard to the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018, to prevent exposure of excess cold.
The seriousness of the landlord’s failure to investigate the lack of heat and hot water, meant the household was potentially exposed to the risk of excess cold, the risk of using an oven to heat the property, and possible increased energy costs as a result. This was unreasonable.
The resident referred to this Service about the boiler issue on 21 March 2023. They told us how the broken boiler had affected the household.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord and contractor inspected the property to see if it had fixed the boiler. This was reasonable to have oversight of the repair. The contractor attempted to fix the boiler on 18 April 2023. The next day the resident complained that they still had no access to heat and hot water.
On 20 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and said they had been prevented from using heat and hot water, as they had an outstanding debt of £1222.79. The resident disagreed with this on the same day, and reiterated they had no access to heat and hot water for over a year. The resident contacted their councillor about the increased debt on 22 June 2023.
It was unreasonable the landlord had not investigated the debt before communicating it to the resident. From the residents replies to the landlord and their action to contact their local councillor, it is clear this deepened their distress and undermined the relationship with the landlord.
On 27 June 2023, the landlord internally recognised the resident did not have debt. It was reasonable the landlord recognised this, although it is unclear when it updated the resident. This is a failure of its record keeping.
On 20 July 2023, the resident told the landlord “I need some form of clarity of when I may have heat and hot water again. I’m broken. Sadly, my home defeated me on this occasion”. This continued to show the landlord how distressed the resident was, due to its inaction to restore heat and hot water.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord sent a technical supervisor to the property to inspect and repair different issues with the resident’s boiler system. On that date, the landlord told the resident that access to heat and hot water had been restored to the property. This is also what the resident had told this Service.
It was reasonable that the landlord completed the repair to the boiler. Although, it had taken 17 months to restore full access to the communal heating system and it was only after this Service and the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord that it took action to ensure the repair was completed.
Throughout the 17 month it took to repair the boiler, the landlord had not proactively communicated with the resident. It was also unclear when access to heat and hot water was and was not working. This is a failure of its service.
On 26 July 2023, the landlord provided its final response. It offered the resident compensation for the boiler issue, as well as other complaints it answered. In response to the substantive boiler issue, the landlord offered the resident a total of £2511, made up of:
1. £450 for loss of hot water, based on assumptions of energy usage.
2. £976 for use of 2 space heaters for 244 days.
3. £15 for repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues.
4. £15 for the resident having to chase for the repair.
5. £15 for failure of its service.
6. £15 for miscommunication.
7. £25 for failing to respond within its timescales.
8. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Considering how the landlord apportioned this offer, the amounts for service failure, miscommunication, chasing for the repair, and repeat visits, have been included as part of the distress and inconvenience payment. This is a total of £1085 for distress and inconvenience caused.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman determines whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
From the landlord’s complaint responses, it agreed it caused delay to repair the resident’s access to heat and hot water. It offered a total of £2511, which was in part for distress and inconvenience and associated heating costs. It confirmed the contractor fixed the boiler, the landlord internally highlighted the issue to management, and it had a dedicated team to learn lessons.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not ask the resident to provide evidence of increased energy usage. The resident previously told the landlord of increased costs due to alternative heating provisions. It therefore would have been reasonable to request evidence, in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s complaint response could be said to have put things right for the resident. But the landlord had not recognised:
1. it had not set an action plan and proactively updated the resident about the repair, to ensure the boiler was fixed in a timely manner.
2. it had not recognised the exposure to cold the household endured over 2 winter periods, and had not recognised the increased risk due to its inaction to ensure temporary provisions were adequate and in working order.
3. it had deepened the resident’s distress by communicating an outstanding debt, when there was no debt for the resident to pay.
4. it had not requested the resident’s evidence of higher energy costs that may be due to alternative heating provisions, in line with its compensation policy.
5. any learnings from the failures identified and listed above.
If the landlord had not taken the actions it did to recognise and address the repair to the boiler, this Service would have found severe maladministration. Considering its overall response and that it had not recognised some failings in how it handled the repair, as listed above, we find maladministration.
The landlord’s offer considered some impact on the resident but had not recognised the issues listed above. Considering our remedies guidance, an appropriate amount for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident would be £600, in addition to the £1085 offered. This is a total of £1685.
The landlord offered a total of £1426 to the resident for the increased energy costs. Although, it should request the resident’s evidence of energy usage to determine if there had been additional costs beyond what it has offered.
The landlord had not explained what lessons it learnt from the substantive issue or how it will prevent this in the future. It should write to the resident and apologise for these failures of service, explain why there was a delay to fix the boiler, explain what lessons it learnt and how it will prevent it happening again.

Repairs to the lounge blind, fridge freezer, and communal lift

The resident reported that their lounge blind was not working on 16 May 2022. The landlord did not respond to this.
The resident reported that the fridge freezer was not working on 3 May 2023. The landlord did not respond.
The contractor told the landlord on 19 May 2023, that the lift was out of service due to a faulty regulator and encoder that needed to be replaced. It was reasonable and in line with policy that the lift was taken out of service due to the defect.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord updated the resident that the lift was awaiting parts. This was reasonable to keep them up to date with the delay.
On the same date, the landlord told the resident it requested a contractor fix the lounge blinds in 2021, although it had since found the contractor had not received this. As the landlord previously committed to replacing the blinds, it was unreasonable it had not kept oversight of the repair which meant the resident did not have working blinds for over a year.
On 16 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that their fridge freezer was still not working which spoiled food. They complained that they had been without a working lift, and the landlord had not repaired the blinds.
On 19 June 2023, the contactor fixed the lift, and the landlord updated the resident about this on the same day. Although there was a delay to repair the lift, it was reasonable that it was taken out of service whilst the defect was repaired in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord internally recognised that as it provided the integrated fridge freezer, it would take responsibility for it. This was not communicated to the resident. This meant there was a lack of clarity and assurance as to who was taking responsibility for the replacement of the fridge freezer. This was unreasonable.
The landlord ordered a new fridge freezer for the resident, which arrived on 30 June 2023. This was nearly 2 months after the resident reported it was broken. It was fair the landlord made the discretionary decision to replace the fridge freezer. But there was a lack of communication about this, and a delay to replace it, which was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord had:
1. not clearly communicated who is responsible to replace the fridge freezer.
2. not kept oversight of the repairs it committed to do, which caused delays.
3. not kept the resident updated with repairs.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it upheld the delay to replace the fridge freezer, the lounge blind, and repair the communal lift. It offered the resident:
1. £60 for the delay replacing the fridge freezer.
2. £60 for the delay replacing the blind.
3. £50 for the failure of the communal lift.
Since the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it arranged a contractor to fix the blind on 4 September 2023. The resident confirmed that the repair to the blinds is still outstanding.
Considering the above, we find maladministration in how the landlord handled the repairs.
Considering our remedies guidance and the landlords compensation policy, an appropriate amount for the distress and inconvenience caused, is to offer £250. It can subtract the £170 offered, if already paid to the resident.
The landlord should also ensure oversight of its commitment to repair the lounge blind and arrange for it to be repaired.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. the response should confirm its the landlord’s stage 1 response.
3. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The evidence does not show when the resident first complained. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2022. It had until 20 April 2022 to provide the resident a stage 1 response or confirm an extension to reply.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 April 2022 to confirm it needed an extension to reply. It said it will provide the stage 1 response by 6 May 2022. The landlord was 1 day late to confirm an extension, which was not in line with the Code and its complaint policy. This was a minor failure of its service.
The landlord provided the resident its stage 1 response on 5 May 2022. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord recognised the resident disputed the stage 1 response on 28 June 2022. The landlord had until 26 July 2022 to provide a stage 2 response.
The resident continued to raise their complaint to the landlord for the months following. The landlord added the resident’s comments to the open complaint, although it did not provide a stage 2 response. Instead, on 20 December 2022, it said it would restart the complaint process. This was unreasonable, not in line with its policy or the Code, and delayed the outcome for the resident.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 March 2023, referred to this Service on 21 March 2023, and chased the landlord again on 19 April 2023. The continued delay was unreasonable and distressed the resident.
The landlord provided a new stage 1 response on 18 May 2023, which the resident disagreed with on the same date. The landlord had until 16 June 2023 to provide a stage 2 response or request an extension.
On 22 June 2023, the landlord confirmed an extension to provide its stage 2 response. This was outside of the time it had to confirm an extension. This was unreasonable, not in line with its policy or the Code. The landlord had until 6 July 2023 to provide the stage 2 response.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 July 2023 as they had not received the final response. The landlord provided the stage 2 response to the resident 14 working days late, on 26 July 2023. This was unreasonable, not in line with its policy or the Code, and caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
From the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered the resident £150 for the delay providing its stage 2 response from 18 May 2023.
While the landlord made some attempts to put things right, the offer of compensation does not fully recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident. This is due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures and the delay it caused to provide a stage 2 response from June 2022.
In summary, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, because it:
1. delayed the complaint process for a year.
2. provided poor communication throughout the complaint process.
3. failed to acknowledge all the complaint handling failures identified in this investigation and therefore did not put things right or learn from it.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedies guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £300. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord can deduct the £150 it offered the resident, if it has been paid to them.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair of the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident and apologise for the failures in this report, explain why there was a delay to fix the boiler and the lounge blind to help rebuild the relationship, and how it will prevent these failures happening again.
2. repair or replace the lounge blind.
3. pay the resident a total of £3661, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the boiler repair, in addition to the £1085 offered, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs, it can deduct £170 previously offered if it has been paid to the resident.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint, it can deduct £150 it previously offered if it has been paid to the resident.
Within 42 days write to the resident with a reasonable timescale to provide evidence of increased energy usage. If received from the resident, the landlord should write to them to set out its position, based on its policy, on the level of reimbursement for the resident’s additional utility costs.