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

Southern Housing (202315167)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315167

Southern Housing

26 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:
    1. Roofing repair works.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, who owns a first floor flat within a building (the property). There are 5 flats in total. The building is owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord employs a contractor to manage building work.
  2. Roof repair works were carried out in 2021 and early 2022. In November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord there were signs of damp in the property from the roof.
  3. Scaffolding was erected in November 2022 to enable roof repairs, and it remained until August 2023. The resident believes there was little work completed during this time, which unnecessarily lengthened the time residents were inconvenienced the scaffolding.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 February 2023 that water ingress had caused damp in the property. The landlord responded on 20 June 2023, offering £50 compensation for its response delay and £30 for its poor communication.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 June 2023 and received a response on 25 July 2023. The landlord said the repair work was being completed as quickly as possible but it apologised for its failure to update her accordingly. It offered a further £20 compensation.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she did not feel the compensation offer was proportionate to the landlord’s failings and the effects they have had.

Assessment and findings

Handling of roofing repair works

  1. The resident, along with her neighbours, reported to the landlord in November 2022 that there was damp coming into the building from the roof. She believes this was a result of previous roof repairs being defective. A surveyor detected damp in the property’s ceiling and walls on 17 November 2022. The resident was understandably anxious that this may worsen.
  2. According to its repair policy, the landlord must keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair. This includes the roof. The policy does not give target timescales for repairs but says it should “take as little time as possible.” It is difficult to determine a reasonable timescale for roof repairs, as there may be variable factors. However, we would expect the landlord to do everything within its control to progress matters, including engaging regularly with the contractors.
  3. There is no evidence of communication from the landlord to the resident about the repairs until the resident chased it in June 2023. This was not appropriate, as it was obviously causing concern given she had complained about the matter.
  4. The resident felt frustrated and ignored due to the lack of communication. She reported that little work appeared to be done during the months the scaffolding was up. She said dust and disruption were being caused by the scaffolding and there were no updates provided about the schedule or progress of works. This was not acceptable.
  5. In its stage 1 response in June 2023 the landlord said the surveyor and site supervisor visited the building regularly. It said the “probable factor for prolonged repair works is unsafe weather conditions for roofers at height.” There was no evidence to support this and it did not appear the landlord knew the actual reason for any delay. The landlord apologised the repairs had not gone to plan for “various reasons” and said it was trying to expedite them. It did not expand on what these reasons may be or give any timescales for work. The update was, therefore, not meaningful or helpful.
  6. With regards the resident’s report of damp inside the property, the landlord advised her to contact her insurer as she was a leaseholder. The lease states the resident is responsible for the internal walls and ceilings but there are exceptions for issues involving damages covered under the landlord’s insurance. It states the landlord must have building insurance and produce the policy details to the leaseholder when required. It is not within our remit to assign liability for the damp or determine causation from the roof. However the landlord should have offered its insurance details for further enquiry.
  7. The landlord stated it instructed a structural engineer who identified additional brickwork repairs to the chimney stack. It was positive this necessary work was identified and further issues may have explained the increased time for repairs. However this should have been communicated to the resident throughout.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023 to say the contractor had emailed residents to say repairs to the building’s render were complete. The resident was concerned that a large crack in the render under her bedroom window, previously reported, had not been fixed. The landlord replied the following day to say the repairs would be completed before the scaffolding was removed. It shows an improvement in responsiveness that the landlord replied quickly but evidences miscommunication and further stress for the resident.
  9. On 6 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask about the repairs. The landlord responded the following day, stating it understood the resident’s frustration. It said it was awaiting an update and had requested an action plan from the contractor dealing with the scaffolders and roofers. Due to the length of time this issue was going on, it was disappointing the landlord did not already have this. The landlord said this update was expected by the end of the day. However, there is no evidence this update was obtained or passed to the resident, further contributing to the poor communication.
  10. The resident chased the landlord further on 8, 11 and 12 July 2023. She asked specific questions about the plans for works, rendering repairs and the scaffolding. The landlord responded on 12 July 2023 and offered to meet the resident the following day, when it attended to inspect the site, to discuss her concerns. The resident declined this meeting, stating she had said all she needed to and just wanted the work to be done. The landlord said the scaffolding would be removed once it had inspected on 13 July 2023. It was positive the landlord offered a face to face meeting, although it is understandable the resident felt little confidence at that point.
  11. The scaffolding was removed, following works being completed, on 18 August 2023. This was over a month later than the landlord had informed the resident, causing more frustration and distrust.
  12. The scaffolding was in place for 9 months. The landlord said it was satisfied the contractors progressed the repairs as quickly as possible, whereas the resident reports long periods with no work being done. Due to the nature of the works, it is difficult to say with any certainty how long they should have taken to complete (in the absence of specific policy timeframes). However, the landlord failed in its communication to the resident. It did not offer any reasonable or meaningful explanation for the periods of time there appeared to be little work completed. It also failed to offer updates, action plans or timescales for the work.
  13. This caused the resident stress because of the disruption caused by the scaffolding. It also caused concern and anxiety because there was damp inside the property, which the repairs needed to rectify. It is understandable the resident wanted the works completed as soon as possible and the landlord should have been more responsive to that.
  14. The landlord’s failures in communication about repairs to the roof amount to maladministration, due to the prolonged timescale and adverse effect they had on the resident. During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £30 for its poor communication. This was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. Therefore, in accordance with our guidance on remedies, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in recognition of the time, trouble and stress the resident experienced chasing the landlord for information.

Handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. The resident said she made a formal complaint in November 2022, when the damp was detected inside the property. There is no evidence the landlord recorded or responded to this, which is unacceptable.
  2. On 21 February 2023 the resident rang the landlord and complained about the same issue, stating damp and water ingress in the property was a result of roof works completed in 2021. This was recorded by the landlord and it was noted another resident in the building had been temporarily moved due to damp and mould in their bedroom. This indicated how serious the issue was and the landlord should have been aware of how stressful it was for the resident.
  3. The landlord failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint and no update was provided. This was in breach of its complaint policy which states it should provide a response within 10 working days.
  4. The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response on at least 2 occasions in June 2023. She asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2, but the landlord said it could not do this without the stage 1 response being issued. This was frustrating and confusing to the resident as the landlord had failed to provide this.
  5. On 8 June 2023 the resident requested a call back from a manager due to the lack of progress. On 13 June 2023 the landlord said it would arrange for someone to look at the complaint. It was unreasonable that this had not already happened.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2023, 4 months after the complaint was made. Given the time that had already passed, it may have only provided it due to the resident chasing and insisting it be passed to a manager. The delay was unfair and unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was not proportionate to the amount of time and stress the resident had spent on this issue.
  7. The resident’s request for escalation to stage 2 was acknowledged on 27 June 2023. As she had made it clear she wished to escalate as soon as stage 1 had been issued, it would have been fair to acknowledge earlier than this. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 25 July 2023, exactly on its target of 20 working days after acknowledgment. It accepted it had not met service standards for response times and offered £20 compensation. While the landlord was more responsive in providing its stage 2 response, the overall complaint handling amounted to maladministration and an extra £20 does not reflect its level of failure.
  8. For its maladministration in complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have not had a permanent impact but have adversely affected the resident. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Roofing repair works.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation, as follows:
      1. £200 for its poor communication about the roofing repairs. The £30 offered during the complaints process can be deducted from this sum if already paid.
      2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The £70 offered during the complaints process can be deducted from this sum if already paid.