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

Southern Housing (202313629)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313629

Southern Housing

25 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:
    1. Reports of poor workmanship in relation to the fitting of the windows.
    2. Concerns raised about a concrete patio and water ingress.
    3. Request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 20 February 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The resident first asked the landlord on 3 February 2021 when he was due to have a new bathroom and kitchen fitted. He contacted the landlord again in 2022 and 2023 to ask for further updates.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 26 May 2023 that it planned to complete the work in 2024/2025. As the resident was not happy with the response, he asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint. He also raised a concern with the landlord on 16 June 2023 about his concrete patio.
  4. The resident sent the landlord a detailed explanation of his complaint on 19 July 2023. This included concerns about his concrete patio. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It said it looked as though it had replaced the bathroom in 2011. It said the separate upstairs and downstairs toilets were older, although they were in working order. It confirmed that it was due to replace the kitchen by 2024/25. It apologised for the breakdown in communication and offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in providing a response.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023 as he did not feel that the landlord had fully answered his complaint. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It acknowledged that there were delays in responding to the resident. However, it confirmed that it had completed all outstanding repairs. It said it was sorry that it had not completed the full refurbishment he was expecting. It offered compensation of £265 made up of £150 for complaint handling failures, £40 for not responding to the resident and £75 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of his complaint the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s governance and use of funds. These issues are not within our remit, so will not be considered as part of the investigation.

Reports of poor workmanship in relation to the fitting of the windows

  1. The resident did not raise concerns about his windows in his formal complaint. He first raised an issue about the window fitters in his escalation request dated 4 September 2023.
  2. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It explained that it had not investigated his complaint at stage 1. It also said it had spoken to its planned works team and confirmed that the windows were replaced and handed over in January 2020. Therefore, it said it was unable to investigate his concerns due to the length of time that had passed. This was in line with its complaints policy which says it will only investigate a complaint made within 12 months of the issue occurring. It said the resident should raise a request for a repair if there were any issues with his windows.
  3. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised any concerns in relation to the window fitters prior to his escalation request on 4 September 2023. As this was over 3 years from the date the windows were fitted, and as the concerns were not raised at stage 1, it was appropriate of the landlord to suggest that the resident report any issues with his windows as a repair request.
  4. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the windows.

Concerns raised about a concrete patio and water ingress

  1. The resident did not include the concerns relating to his concrete patio in his formal complaint. However, he sent the landlord a picture of his concrete patio on 16 June 2023 and said it was a health and safety hazard.
  2. The evidence suggests that the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 10 July 2023 to inspect the patio. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the inspection took place. And if it did, what the outcome was.
  3. The resident sent the landlord a detailed explanation of his formal complaint on 18 July 2023. He referred to the landlord “gifting a hazardous concrete patio” without his prior knowledge or consent. He suggested the landlord had told him that he was to maintain and repair the patio at his own expense. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns within its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code) says at paragraph 5.7 “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.”
  5. In this case the stage 1 complaint had not been issued when the resident raised his concerns. There is no evidence to suggest that including the patio concerns would have unreasonably delayed the response. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the landlord not to include the resident’s concerns about his patio within the stage 1 response.
  6. The resident raised the issue again in his stage 2 escalation request. He said the landlord said it had no responsibility for the concrete patio and it would not repair it. He said he had not been notified that it was his responsibility to maintain. He said it was a hazard as it had a hole in it which allowed water to drain into the foundations of his property.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It said the complaint was not raised at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said it had noted the resident’s concerns and a surveyor was able to attend to inspect the patio on 17 November 2023. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the inspection took place.
  8. In summary, although the landlord raised an inspection request to assess the patio area, it did not recognise that the resident had raised his concerns before the stage 1 response had been issued. It therefore missed the opportunity to fully investigate the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint process. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

A request for a new kitchen and bathroom

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2021 as he had been told previously that his kitchen and bathroom were due for refurbishment in 2021. This was because they were more than 25 years old. The landlord responded on 8 February 2021. It said it was not carrying out any refurbishments due to the delays caused by COVID-19. 
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 April 2022 to ask for an update. The landlord responded on 9 April 2022 and said there was a backlog of planned works due to COVID-19. It said it would contact the resident when the work was due to be done.
  3. The resident asked the landlord on 16 August 2022 whether it was possible to give him a timeframe for the works. The landlord told the resident in September 2022 that his kitchen was due to be replaced in 2023/24 and his bathroom in 2026. It said, if the resident felt they needed renewing before the dates given, a surveyor would need to assess the condition. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident what steps he could take to challenge these renewal dates. It told the resident to call the service centre to arrange an inspection. The resident responded to the landlord’s email, although it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether he contacted the service centre.
  4. The resident asked the landlord on 6 April 2023 what month it planned to complete his kitchen refurbishment, as he wanted to book a holiday. He sent the same email again on 20 April 2023 and he chased a response on 15 May 2023. The landlord responded on 17 May 2023. It said its planned support team was going through a restructure, and this was the reason for the delay in its response. It said it had contacted a manager directly for advice. The landlord sent the resident an email on 26 May 2023. It said the resident’s planned works were due to be completed in 2024/25.
  5. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. It often did not respond to his queries within a reasonable timeframe. It also raised his expectations unfairly. It was not clear that the dates given for the refurbishment of his kitchen and bathroom were approximate, subject to change and dependant on many external factors. Had the landlord been clearer about the flexibility of the timeframes, the resident’s expectations may have been more appropriately managed.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 26 May 2023. He said his kitchen was more than 25 years old and it was falling apart. He said his bathroom was also in disrepair.
  7. The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 10 July 2023. As a result of the visit, the landlord raised a job to replace the bathroom extractor fan, carry out a mould wash, and paint a small area of the ceiling.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident again on 31 July 2023 to carry out a further inspection. They said the cracks in the bathroom wall were superficial and the resident’s responsibility. They confirmed that there was a waterproof covering on the wall, which was the resident’s responsibility to remove. They said the bath and basin might have been updated in 2011, but they agreed that the separate upstairs and downstairs toilets were much older, although still in working order. The landlord said it would not be ordering any further repairs.
  9. Despite the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable of the landlord to base its decision not to complete any further repairs at this point on the advice of its surveyor. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on the observations and conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff. In addition, the landlord had already raised repairs to the bathroom to address issues of mould raised by the resident. That was a reasonable step to take.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It said each year it used its asset data and annual stock condition surveys to decide the scope of its investment projects. It said its surveyor noted that the separate upstairs and downstairs toilets were older than 2011. But a plumber had checked them and found them to be in working order. It said if it did not replace the resident’s kitchen in 2024/25 under its planned programme, it would look to replace it under a separate business plan (subject to approval at that time). It confirmed that its bathroom renewals were set at 30 years and would only be brought forward if necessary due to disrepair. The landlord apologised for the breakdown in communication. It said it recognised that it should have kept the resident updated throughout the process and explained the reasons for the delays.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said they had missed several key issues of his complaint.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It said its surveyor had confirmed that the bathroom and toilet were both in working order and there were no outstanding repairs. It said it replaced one of the toilets on 18 September 2023 due to a crack, and the resident replaced the sink and installed a walk-in shower by choice. It said it would continue to undertake repairs as and when they were needed until the upgrades were completed. The landlord acknowledged that there was often a delay or lack of response when the resident made contact. It offered compensation of £115 for not responding within timescales, and for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
  13. The landlord installed a new kitchen and bathroom in the resident’s property in September 2024 through its planned work programme.
  14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £115 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays or lack of response represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  15. In summary, although the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £115 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint in an email dated 26 May 2023. However, the landlord did not open a complaint until it had spoken to the resident on 29 June 2023. That was not appropriate because it contributed to the delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 extension letter on 20 July 2023 extending the timeframe for a response by a further 10 working days. However, it did not send the resident a stage 1 complaint response until 1 September 2023. This was 9 weeks from the date it logged the complaint and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days (including the extension period) set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023. However, the landlord contacted him on 15 September 2023 and told him that he could not escalate his complaint to stage 2 until it had issued a stage 1 complaint response. This was not an appropriate response because it had already done so.
  5. We wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did so on 16 November 2023. This was over 10 weeks from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. Due to the delays at both stages of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed his ability to escalate the matter to this Service. It did, however, acknowledge its delays at both stages within the stage 2 response. It also offered the resident £150 compensation.
  7. In the circumstances the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  8. In summary, although there were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £150 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of poor workmanship in relation to the fitting of the windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised about a concrete patio and water ingress.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of a request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about a concrete patio and water ingress.
    3. If it has not done so already, complete a full inspection of the concrete patio. The landlord must provide both the resident and this Service with a copy of the inspection report, which should include details of any remedial work it plans to undertake.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £265 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendation.