Southern Housing (202311125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311125

Southern Housing

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of communal repairs.
2. Concerns regarding communal cleaning.
3. Concerns relating to fire safety, including fire doors and cladding.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared-owner of a 1-bedroom second-floor flat. The resident holds a lease with the landlord.
The landlord has confirmed that it is not the freeholder of the resident’s building. The freeholder is a private company, not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The freeholder employs a managing agent responsible for the building’s repairs. We have not seen a copy of the Head Lease.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident complained on 8 January 2023. She said:
1. The cleaning in the communal areas had not been done.
2. A leak from November 2022 had damaged the walls and carpets in the building which needed to be repaired/replaced.
3. She was out of water for 40 hours while a mains water leak was fixed. The leak had caused mould in the communal hallway which had been painted over.
4. The gates to the car park jammed, and the resident’s daughter missed her swimming lesson.
5. She wanted an update on the cladding on the building.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response that included:
1. The managing agent reported that all cladding was removed from the building in the previous year but had not informed the residents.
2. Seven new fire doors were being installed, with carpenters present on-site since 3 January 2023.
3. Mould in the communal area had been cleaned, block stained and painted.
4. The mains water repair was conducted in the early hours to reduce residents’ inconvenience from a water outage, and they expressed regret for the resulting noise.
5. The managing agent acknowledged that the repair took longer than anticipated, which may have resulted in insufficient water supply.
6. Follow-up work for the car park gate was needed, with parts already ordered.
7. The managing agent stated they would not compensate the resident for the missed swimming lesson, as it was not due to their negligence.
8. A cleaning company and the onsite caretaker completed the cleaning.
9. The walls and carpets in communal areas have been cleaned and were in good condition.
10. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience to the resident and the lack of clarity in the complaints process, offering £100 in compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 February 2023, as she felt the landlord was not taking building safety seriously. The resident said the fire door was slamming, the mould had been painted over, and she believed she should be offered more compensation for the lack of water during the outage, the insufficient cleaning, and the missed swimming lesson.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 29 March 2023 and said that the managing agent was responsible for the building, and it was understood that many of the repairs reported had been attended to. It said:
1. It was satisfied with the standard of cleaning and the maintenance provided.
2. It was sorry the swimming lesson was missed, and as a gesture of goodwill, it offered £35 for the missed lesson.
3. It did not feel the managing agent could have done more regarding the mains water repairs, but it understood that the resident was disturbed during the works and offered £50 for this.
4. It was sorry that the resident had safety concerns regarding the cladding. The managing agent had commissioned an assessment, and it would determine if further works were required to the building.
5. It offered £235 compensation, including £50 for the failings in its complaint handling and £100 as offered at stage 1.
We have not been able to speak with the resident to identify which elements of her complaint remain unresolved. As a result, we have investigated the issues the landlord addressed in its responses to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord does not have any repair obligations in this case; however, it is required to inform the managing agent of any repairs that fall under the freeholder’s responsibility. Consequently, our report has focused on the landlord’s minimal actions.
The freeholder has responsibility, among other things, to keep the structure and exterior of the building in good repair and to maintain and repair all the communal parts of the building and estate. In this case, the managing agent was responsible for completing repairs on the freeholder’s behalf.
The resident’s lease sets out her obligations to pay service charges to the landlord in addition to her rent. Service charges are amounts payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance, or the landlord’s costs of management, to the extent that the costs have been reasonably incurred.
For ease of reading, each repair has been assessed under a sub-heading.

Reports of communal repairs

Water leak

The resident was unhappy that works to repair the water leak had taken place in the early hours of the morning. The landlord offered an explanation given by the managing agent that this was done to reduce the impact of resident’s not having access to water in the day. It offered an apology from the managing agent for the disturbance and for the additional time the repair had taken.
Because of this, it recognised that it had not supplied enough water to the 47 affected households while the water was off. The landlord was not obliged to offer compensation in this case; however, it showed a resolution-focus by offering £50 compensation for the loss of water and the late night work.

Hallway repairs

The leak was reported in November 2022, and the resident reported that it had damaged the hallway walls and carpet. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted the managing agent on 12 January 2023 to ask for an update on the reports. This was appropriate and aligned with an expectation outlined in our spotlight report: A new lease of life, that landlords must ensure timely and accurate communication, particularly when a managing agent is involved.
The landlord liaised appropriately with the managing agent and the property manager regarding the resident’s reports of repairs in the communal hallway. The evidence confirms that the managing agent and property manager completed an inspection on 23 January 2023 and confirmed that the communal areas were in good condition.
The resident said that the carpet in the hall needed to be replaced, as the water leak had damaged it. The landlord again liaised appropriately with the managing agent, who confirmed that the carpet was deep-cleaned. It was also reasonable to explain that the freeholder prioritised works related to fire remediation over replacing the carpet.
The resident said that the mould caused by the leaks had just been painted over. The landlord confirmed that the managing agent had washed down the mould, stain-blocked the affected areas, and painted them. There is no evidence that the landlord asked for a copy of the works to verify the repairs the managing agent said were completed. Our spotlight report on managing agents published in 2022 recommends that where records are held or made on behalf of managing agents, landlords should endeavour to ensure that they are provided either with copies of, or other clear information on, technical assessments, decisions and plans. There is no evidence that the landlord requested this information to be able to monitor the repairs and performance.

Parking Gate

The resident’s block has a parking space accessed via a vehicle gate. The resident complained that the gate had jammed, so she could not leave the car park to take her daughter to her swimming lesson. Again, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience and offered £35 compensation for the missed lesson. This was a reasonable response.
In summary, the landlord showed a commitment to resolution by apologising and offering compensation for the communal repairs. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the communal repairs.

Concerns relating to communal cleaning

The evidence indicates that the landlord engaged with the managing agent about the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning. However, the landlord did not ask for copies of inspections or records to check the frequency of cleaning in the block, nor did it request inspection reports to confirm what cleaning was performed. As a result, we cannot verify whether the resident received the service she paid for or if the cleaning standard was adequate.
While the landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that it had found the building to be well maintained, that the caretaker was on site between 5 and 7 days a week, and that it was inspected 2 or 3 times a week, we would expect the landlord to have requested evidence of this from the managing agent.
Therefore, we have found a service failing because it has not shown that it has taken action to ensure that the communal cleaning was delivered as it should be, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Fire safety including fire doors and cladding

The resident had reported that a door had been broken over the Christmas period. The landlord confirmed that 7 new bespoke fire doors had been ordered which would arrive at the end of January 2023. It confirmed that fire contractors had been onsite since 3 January 2023.
The resident was concerned that the fire door was slamming. The landlord advised the resident that all doors were being replaced in the building and, on 28 March 2023, confirmed that all doors had been fitted and adjustments made so they would no longer slam. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
The resident said she was unclear about what was happening with the building’s cladding and was, understandably, concerned about its safety.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted the managing agent to request an update. This was a reasonable response. The managing agent confirmed that all cladding had been removed from the building in 2022, but the managing agent had not written to residents regarding this.
The landlord promptly updated the resident with the information provided by the managing agent. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the building is managed by a third party (the managing agent), or if the landlord is not the freeholder, it will:
1. Liaise with relevant parties to get all the information needed to resolve the matter and investigate and respond to the complaint in line with its policy.
2. Investigate and respond within policy timeframes.
The landlord took 23 working days to complete a stage 1 complaint response, 13 days outside of the prescribed timeframe, and 32 working days for the stage 2 response, exceeding the landlord’s timeline by 12 days.
The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £100 compensation, which was reasonable redress considering the delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in handling the communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failing in the landlord’s handling of the communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to fire safety, including fire doors and cladding.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the concerns about the communal cleaning.
2. The money should be paid directly to the resident.
3. Obtain records from the managing agent confirming that communal cleaning is being carried out to an acceptable standard, including any cleaning schedules and recent inspection reports.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £150 offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so in relation to its complaint handling.