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

Southern Housing (202307505)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307505

Southern Housing

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns regarding the security of communal post boxes.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord owns the freehold of the block.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2022 to request that it relocated the communal post-boxes which were situated externally. She said she had been a victim of postal theft and identity fraud.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 August 2022. She said she was unhappy that despite its awareness of postal theft, it had taken no action to address the security of the post-boxes.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. It apologised for its delay in raising the resident’s complaint and for her having to chase updates. It set out the action it was taking to address relocation of the post-boxes. It offered the resident £250 in compensation for:
    1. Its failure to act in a reasonable manner.
    2. The inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to her time and trouble.
    3. Recognition of poor service.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 30 April 2023. She said the landlord’s response did not address all points that she had raised.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 August 2023. It set out its proposals to deliver a solution to the issues faced by the resident. It apologised for its failures in handling her complaint and said it had reviewed the redress offered at stage 1. It offered further compensation of £360 broken down as:
    1. £30 for its failure to update the resident.
    2. £30 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase progress.
    3. £100 for unsatisfactory complaint handling.
    4. £200 for the impact of the situation on the resident.
  7. This brought the landlord’s total compensation offer to the resident to £610.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She was dissatisfied with its compensation offer.

Assessment

Security of the post-boxes

  1. The landlord’s homeowners policy sets out how it will approach matters that affect the safety of a block. It states it will assess the facts involved and seek the advice of relevant authorities to plan its response. It also sets out that it will undertake necessary consultation with homeowners before undertaking works. This in in accordance with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. On 20 July 2022 at a resident’s meeting, the resident told the landlord that she had been a victim of postal theft and identity fraud. The landlord said that due to this it would consider relocating the post boxes inside the building in the hope of enhancing security. It said it would obtain quotes to carry out the work and keep residents updated.
  3. The landlord’s response was reasonable given the resident had been a victim of crime. Whilst it was under no obligation to relocate the post boxes its consideration of further safety measures showed it had taken her concerns on board and was committed to addressing the issue.
  4. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 5 and 18 August 2022. She set out the ways in which the theft and subsequent identity fraud had affected her including impacting her credit score and said she felt ‘unsafe’. She told the landlord that she was aware it knew that other resident’s living in the block had also been victims of postal theft. Considering this, she was unhappy it had not acted sooner to address the problem. She felt the crime could have been prevented had it done so.
  5. It should be noted that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what security measures would be appropriate or determine liability. This would be a legal dispute, better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the manner in which the landlord handled the issue.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s contact on 17 August 2022. It said it was obtaining quotes to have the post-boxes moved internally. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that it had done so at this time. This was a failing which it acknowledged and addressed in its subsequent stage 1 complaint response.
  7. On 7 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to chase its progress. Records show it requested quotes from its contractor to relocate the post boxes upon this contact. It had delayed in carrying out action it had previously agreed to undertake. Given its awareness of the resident’s distress at the situation, it would have been appropriate to provide her with an update to manage her expectations. It was appropriate that it identified these failures, apologised and offered redress to the resident in its stage 1 response. It said its £250 offer of compensation was in recognition of the poor service the resident had received and the inconvenience caused to her due to this.
  8. The landlord’s records show the resident continued to chase updates from it throughout February to March 2023. When issuing its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor, apologised and offered redress for this. It managed the resident’s expectations in stating it would provide her with monthly updates going forward. It confirmed that it had received quotes for the work to relocate the post boxes and had written to residents to consult on the works. This action was appropriate and in line with its policy.
  9. When escalating her complaint the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy it had not commented on CCTV and its relevance to the security of the post boxes in its response. She requested further information on the CCTV system. She asked the landlord to evidence its consideration of the adequacy of CCTV in the building.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable action to address this in its stage 2 investigation. Actions such as requesting further information from its CCTV contractor on the system as well as conducting a site visit to inspect the cameras demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to provide accurate information to the resident. It provided her with a certificate confirming that the building had been developed to ‘Secured by Design’ standards. This demonstrated that it had worked with the local police force to maximise the security of the building.
  11. Along with addressing the CCTV, the evidence shows the landlord took other appropriate steps as part of its stage 2 investigation. Actions such as conducting an inspection, carrying out a site visit and seeking further information from external providers, were reasonable and demonstrated it had listened to the resident’s concerns. While communication with the resident at points could have been timelier, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate measures to address the overall issues.
  12. It was positive that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered revised redress to the resident. It set out several measures it would take to address the security of the post-boxes, along with timescales to manage the resident’s expectations. It said it would provide its findings concerning the CCTV system once it completed its assessment. It set out that by way of apology there would be no charge to residents for work to relocate the post-boxes. This was reasonable and showed it had considered the fact that over 12 months had passed since the resident’s initial report of the issue.
  13. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. The landlord made a revised offer of compensation to the resident at stage 2. This brought its total offer in recognition of failures relating to the substantive issue to £510. It was appropriate that the breakdown of its compensation offer apportioned redress for delays and poor communication along with the resident’s time and trouble. This offer is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. It is our opinion that this offer was therefore reasonable and along with the other steps taken, amounts to reasonable redress.
  15. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response as well as relocating the post boxes it contacted the resident on 29 August 2023 to confirm its findings around the CCTV system. This was in line with the actions set out in its complaint response. It said that cameras in the building existed for the purpose of deterring crime and were not recording live images. It is important to note that there was no obligation on it to provide CCTV and no service charge was in place for this provision. Thus, its investigation to obtain clarity around operation of the CCTV and subsequent response was appropriate in the circumstances.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. In her contact to the landlord on 6 August 2022, the resident said that she believed it had lied to her and due to this wanted the issue ‘escalated’. The landlord’s records show that she referenced her ‘complaint’ in all correspondence with it between this point and March 2023. Despite this it did not acknowledge her contact as a complaint until 7 March 2023. It was appropriate that when it did raise the complaint, the landlord included its delays in complaint handling, as part of its stage 1 investigation.
  3. The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. Despite her chasing it on 30 April 2023 and 31 May 2023 the landlord failed to escalate the complaint until over 3 months later, on 10 July 2023. This delay was inappropriate.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2. This was not in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that there had been failures in its complaint handling. It apologised for this and offered the resident a total of £100 in compensation. It was appropriate that it identified complaint handling was a training issue that it would address with relevant staff.
  6. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable given its delayed responses. Its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns regarding the security of communal post boxes.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £610 which it has offered to pay across all complaint responses if it has not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the sufficient redress finding on that basis.