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

Southern Housing (202317462)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317462

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 response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2002. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. During March 2023 the landlord raised works orders to replace the bedroom window frame and front door.
  3. On 8 June 2023 the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response because it missed appointments on 21 April and 11 May 2023. An appointment had been rebooked for that morning. However, she was advised that the contractor would not be able to attend until the afternoon. She had taken unpaid time off work to attend the appointments. She said she was dissatisfied with its communication and delays.
  4. Following our intervention the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It upheld the complaint because there had been failure of service due to delays completing the repairs. It offered £200 compensation comprised of:
    1. £60 for delays carrying out the repairs.
    2. £40 for 2 missed appointments.
    3. £25 for its delayed response.
    4. £75 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day, 2 November 2023, to ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she did not think the amount of compensation reflected the time wasted on phone calls, emails and missed appointments.
  6. Following our intervention on 5 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed it would not pay for loss of earnings in line with its Compensation Policy. However, it apologised for “all the inconvenience” and for its delay in escalating the complaint. It increased its offer of compensation to £360, broken down as:
    1. £60 for 3 missed appointments.
    2. £75 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
    3. £150 for complaint handling failures.
    4. £60 for failure to repair.
    5. £15 for repeat visits.
  7. The resident emailed us on 12 January 2024 to say she felt “fobbed off.” She was not satisfied with the amount of compensation because it did not include loss of wages. She also did not feel it reflected the inconvenience caused by the delays and repeat appointments.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.

  1. The repair log shows that on 6 March 2023 the landlord raised a works order for the window. It noted that the resident was unable to close it and that it needed a new frame. On 8 March 2023 it raised a works order to replace the front door because it had warped and the frame was loose.
  2. A works order was raised on 11 April 2023 to measure the front door and window. It noted that the size of the window was shown on the attached photographs.
  3. It is unclear why it took the landlord over a month to raise the necessary works orders. Its response was unreasonable and was not in line with its Repairs Policy which states it aims to complete repairs in “as little time as possible.”
  4. An internal email dated 23 May 2023 advised that the resident had called to chase the repair because there had been 2 failed appointments. It requested that someone call her because she had been “waiting long enough.” There is no evidence that it did so. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she called to chase the repairs on 12, 27 July and 7 August 2023.
  5. An internal email dated 29 August 2023 confirmed that works to the front door were referred to its planners on 12 July 2023. Appointments were booked for 21 April, 8 June and 21 August 2023. It is unclear what the appointments were for which is a record keeping failure. It said its contractor attended on 16 March 2023 and requested a new window however, this was not raised as requested.
  6. On 4 September 2023 a works order was raised to book the repairs out to a subcontractor. On 11 September 2023 a request was made for a quote to measure and replace the front door and window. The landlord’s email of 11 April referred to measurements for the window being provided. Therefore it’s unclear why it needed to take them again. The further appointment compounded the delay in replacing the window.
  7. During a call to the landlord on 4 October 2023 the resident was described as “very unhappy” that the windows had been measured on “countless occasions” yet the works remained outstanding.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 November 2023 identified some failures in its response. However, by this point the repairs has been outstanding for 6 months and during this time the resident was unable to close her window. Not only was this a security issue but it was also allowing cold air to enter the room.
  9. The repairs were completed by 5 January 2024 however, the evidence does not show exactly when they took place which is a record keeping failure.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 January 2024 advised that it would not pay compensation for loss of earnings. This was appropriately in line with its Compensation Policy which says it will not pay compensation in such circumstances. This is also in line with our Remedies Guidance which states we will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work or loss of wages while repairs are carried out. However, we will consider inconvenience where it is appropriate to do so.
  11. At stage 2 the landlord offered £210 compensation in total. This included £60 for 3 missed appointments. This was in line with its Compensation Policy which says it will pay £20 for a missed appointment. A further £150 was offered to try to put right its failure to complete the repair in as little time as possible and the associated inconvenience.
  12. It took the landlord at least 6 months to carry out the repairs. During this time the resident chased for updates causing distress and inconvenience. This was compounded by its contractor missing 3 appointments. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s compensation is not considered proportionate to the length of the delay and the distress caused.
  13. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £210 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement date. If it needs more time it will contact the resident to explain why and advise of the expected timescale.
  2. The landlord’s policy was not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time. This is because it required the timescale for the response to be taken from the date the complaint was logged, not from when the acknowledgement was issued.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 8 June 2023. On 15 June the landlord emailed to acknowledge receipt and said it would respond within 10 working days.
  4. On 29 June 2023, 10 working days after receipt, the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension of a further 10 working days. On 14 July, 11 working days later, it emailed again to request another extension of 10 working days. However, it failed to provide a response and failed to provide any further updates.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident was caused time and trouble when she chased the landlord on 7, 11, 30 August and 11 September 2023. She also raised the outstanding response during a call with the landlord on 26 September 2023.
  6. The resident was caused further inconvenience when she contacted us for assistance. We wrote to the landlord to request that it issue its response by 30 October 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 October and again requested an extension of 10 working days.
  7. While it was positive that the landlord provided updates to the resident they came on or after the response was due meaning they were an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectation.
  8. Furthermore, the Code says that where an extension beyond 20 working days is required it should be for good reason and should be agreed by both parties. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed the revised date with the resident. Furthermore, considering that the complaint was relatively straightforward it is unclear why the landlord took so long to gather the information it needed to respond. Therefore, the repeated extensions were unreasonable.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. This was 105 working days after the resident made her complaint. 
  10. Its response broadly identified its failures however, it failed to set out:
    1. What happened after the order for a new window was raised on 16 March 2023.
    2. Why the 2 appointments for the door were missed on 21 April and 8 June 2023 and/or why the operative was unable to complete works on 8 June.
    3. A timeline for completion of the outstanding repairs.
  11. The Code says that an effective complaints process enables a landlord to learn from the issues that arise for residents and to take steps to improve the services it provides. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to assure the resident that it had undertaken a thorough investigation into the complaint. This was because it failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. It also failed to use the complaints process to expedite resolution of the substantive issues.
  12. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 2 November 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint which was inappropriate. Consequently she was caused time and trouble when she chased the response on 23 November, 5, 7 and 12 December 2023.
  13. Due to the landlord’s inaction the resident contacted us again to ask for support. We wrote to the landlord on 2 January 2024 to request that it provide its complaint response by 9 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 January. While this was within the timescale we set, it was 43 working days after the complaint was escalated which was well outside of its target of 20 working days.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to add any further clarity to the failures of service and why they occurred. Therefore, the landlord missed the opportunity to thoroughly review its actions and put right the mistakes it made in its stage 1 response as set out above.
  15. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint. It failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. While this is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance it does not prevent an adverse finding because of the issues set out above. Therefore, this investigation finds there was maladministration because the landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident.
  16. The landlord’s current Complaints Policy is compliant with the current Complaint Handling Code therefore it is not necessary to make an order on this point.
  17. The Ombudsman carried out a special investigation into the landlord in May 2024. We identified a need for the landlord to improve its complaint handling. The landlord responded to say it had restructured its complaint handling process and increased the size of its complaint handling team. Consequently the process had greater “visibility and accountability.”

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation comprised of:
      1. £350 compensation for its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs. It may deduct the £210 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures offered at stage 2 if this has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of its complaint handling. It should ensure that the changes it made following our special investigation will ensure the same failures would not reoccur. If it is not able to satisfy itself accordingly it should outline the steps it intends to take. The outcome of the review should be confirmed in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.