Southern Housing (202316712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316712

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the doors at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and she has lived there since July 2018.
3. On 26 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she had been waiting for a replacement front door and repairs to the back door handle since May 2022.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. It said that its operative had said that the door did not need to be replaced, and there had been no service failure.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 3 October 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 October, in which it said:
   1. the resident first contacted it about a faulty door lock on 5 May 2022 and an appointment was scheduled for 7 June – this appointment was cancelled on 31 May
   2. a further job was raised on 30 July as the door lock was broken and the handle had fallen off – operatives attended the same day and swapped the back and front door handles to secure the property
   3. the resident chased up further repairs in October, November and December 2022 and its operative attended on 5 January 2023 to measure for a replacement door
   4. on 31 May 2023 it told the resident a new door was not required – the resident disputed this and asked for a new survey to be done
   5. a survey was booked for 18 October 2023 however it could not gain access on this day – it said it would contact her to arrange a new appointment
   6. it acknowledged its complaint handling at stage 1 was unsatisfactory and offered £50 compensation to recognise this
   7. it offered £250 compensation to recognise its failings in relation to the repairs
6. On 12 December 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

7. After the landlord issued its stage 2 response the resident raised concerns about its decision not to replace the front door with one that had windows in it.
8. From the evidence provided, the landlord’s decision to replace the door like for like was made after the conclusion of its internal complaints process. It therefore has not the opportunity to investigate this issue. So, while reference to this issue has been included for context, we have not investigated this. The resident will need to raise this directly with the landlord if she remains unhappy with this, to allow it the opportunity to investigate.

Repairs to doors at the property

9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that an issue that compromises the security of outside doors will be treated as an emergency. Any other issues with outside doors will be treated as non-emergency. The policy does not provide timescales for either class of repair, so this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs in line with what we think is reasonable.
10. The landlord said the resident first reported an issue with the door lock on 5 May 2022. We have not seen a copy of the report itself, so it is not known what the specific issue was at this time. An appointment was scheduled for 7 June, but this was cancelled on 31 May. The landlord has not provided records to show whether it cancelled this or whether the resident did.
11. A further job was raised on 30 July 2022 as the door lock was broken and the handle had fallen off. An operative attended the same day and carried out temporary repairs to secure the property. It appears the landlord treated this as an emergency repair, which was reasonable for it to do so. It said it then made a request for an operative to attend a follow-up visit to assess the scope of required repairs.
12. A contractor tried to contact the resident on 2 August 2022 and left a voicemail asking her to contact the landlord. No evidence has been provided that the landlord made any further attempts to contact her, which was not appropriate. She contacted it on 25 October to ask for repairs to be carried out, however, no repair job was raised, which was also not appropriate.
13. The resident made further calls on 16 November and 22 December 2022, however, again no job was raised. On 30 December she called the landlord again, who gave her the direct contact details for its repairs team and asked her to contact them herself. While this was not initially an unreasonable action, she called the landlord the next day saying she was unable to contact the team.
14. Rather than take responsibility for liaising with the team, on 5 January 2023 the landlord again asked the resident to do this. Given the number of times she had contacted the landlord and it had failed to arrange repairs, this did not demonstrate that it was proactive and was not reasonable.
15. The resident contacted the repairs time on 5 January 2023 and an operative attended the same day to measure the front door to obtain a quote for a replacement. No evidence has been provided that any further action was taken at this time, and no explanation for this was provided to the resident. This was not appropriate.
16. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2023. She was unhappy that issues with the door remained unresolved, despite the door being measured in January.
17. On 31 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that, in its opinion, the door did not need to be replaced. It sent an operative on 5 June to carry out repairs, however, the resident refused access as she was unhappy with the proposed repairs.
18. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 June 2023, in which it said there had been no missed or delayed appointments. It did not provide any explanation of what it intended to do to repair or replace the doors. The letter was unclear on what had happened and if would take any further action, which was not appropriate. On 7 June, the resident asked the landlord to carry out a new survey.
19. The landlord raised a job on 26 June 2023 for a survey to be carried out and an appointment was booked for 19 July. However, the landlord has no record that this appointment went ahead. A request was made for it to be rearranged for 2 August, but it was rescheduled for 18 October. Again, it is not clear from the landlord’s records why this was, and this represented an unreasonable delay.
20. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 October 2023. She said the landlord had at no point advised her the door did not need to be replaced. She said it was falling apart, as reported to the landlord following a survey. She said other neighbours’ doors had been replaced, despite these not being part of a scheduled programme of works.
21. On 18 October 2023, the landlord’s operative was unable to gain access to the property. In its stage 2 response of 31 October, it said it would contact the resident to arrange a new appointment. It acknowledged that its complaint handling at stage 1 had been unsatisfactory and offered £50 compensation to recognise this.
22. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been delays, a missed appointment and poor service in its handling of the repairs to the doors. It offered £250 compensation to recognise the inconvenience she had experienced. It said it aimed to carry out a new survey by 28 November. It carried out the survey on 17 November, which was within the promised timescale.
23. On 27 November 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that a new door, which was like for like, had been ordered. The resident said she was told she could have one with windows to allow for more light in her hallway. The landlord initially said that it would not provide such a door, and the resident was not happy with this. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that a new door, with windows, was fitted in January 2024.
24. There were failings by the landlord, including delays and a missed appointment. However, the landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation and apology offered by the landlord during its internal complaints process was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
25. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the doors at the resident’s property.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the doors at the resident’s property.

Recommendation

27. The landlord to pay the resident the £250 compensation offered during its internal complaints process within 28 days of this report, if it has not already done so.