Southern Housing (202318421)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318421

Southern Housing

30 May 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:
   1. The landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block.
   2. The landlord’s maintenance of CCTV.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block. 
   4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the service charges. 
   5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint. 

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a ground floor flat within a block. The landlord is the freeholder and manages the block.

The first complaint

3. On 4 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its management of the CCTV system. He stated that the system never appeared to be operational, despite ongoing ASB within the block. He also expressed concern that the landlord did not routinely check whether the CCTV was working unless prompted. He said that the landlord had lost the key to the system and took several months to replace it, which he said left residents of the block at risk. On 6 August 2022 the resident added to his complaint that the landlord had not completed a repair to a handrail to an acceptable standard.
4. On 9 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the first complaint, in which it said:
   1. On 31 March 2022, it found that 6 of the 12 CCTV cameras were out of service.
   2. It also found that the key to the CCTV cupboard had been removed and had requested a padlock change. It explained that the padlock change was completed on 22 July 2022, and the CCTV cameras were subsequently checked and found to be in working order on 11 August 2022.
   3. It was sorry for not resolving the issue promptly and assured the resident that it would complete monthly online checks of the block’s CCTV in future.
   4. It acknowledged that the handrail had not been colour matched. It confirmed that it arranged a post inspection of the repair and said that it would not charge the resident for the cost of the work.
   5. It was due to complete cyclical work to the block, during which all woodwork would be painted.
5. On 10 October 2022 the resident discussed his complaint with the landlord. He explained that he felt that the landlord had not improved its service following previous complaints he made. He referred to a leak in the communal area and said that the landlord had not completed follow-on works a good standard. He asked that the landlord added the following points to his complaint:
   1. The landlord had not changed the access code for the bin store, and it had been over a month.
   2. The landlord had not installed a fob reader to the bin store despite agreeing to.
   3. Youths had the code and were congregating in the block thus creating a security risk.
   4. The resident questioned why the landlord was decorating the block, when cyclical works were due.

The second complaint

6. On 20 October 2022 the resident submitted a review request to the landlord. He stated he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s ongoing failures, which he said had persisted since his previous complaints. He also raised concerns about security issues, the quality of the landlord’s repairs, the landlord’s management of the building, and alleged false accounting by the landlord. The landlord confirmed that it would raise these issues as a new separate complaint.
7. On 16 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint. It said:
   1. That following a reported issue with the car park gates, its contractor reprogrammed the access codes to the gate on 3 November 2022. It apologised for the time it took to address this.
   2. Installing a key fob system to the bin store area posed security risks, as the area served as an undesignated access route into the building.
   3. In relation to the concerns raised about the quality of the repair to the leak, the landlord confirmed that its contractor would attend on 18 November 2022 to investigate the issue.
   4. It apologised that the resident was experiencing ASB and said that it had asked the senior property manager for an update on what it was doing and would let the resident know.
   5. It confirmed that it would start cyclical decorations at the start of 2023.
   6. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with its service delivery, the lack of action taken, and its overall management of the block. It explained that it was working to improve these areas.
8. On 22 November 2022 the resident confirmed that he was unhappy with the stage 1 response to the second complaint. The landlord agreed that it would consider a review of both complaints at the same time. On 12 June 2023 the resident asked that the landlord arrange the review because it had not fixed anything for 6 months.
9. On 17 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to both complaints, which can be summarised as follows:
   1. It stated that to fully address the resident’s concerns, it would carry out an inspection of the block that day to identify all outstanding repairs. It also confirmed that it would assess the general cleanliness of the building during the visit. The landlord agreed to share the inspection report with the resident, schedule any required repairs, and inspect all completed works.
   2. It apologised for the delay in commencing the cyclical works and explained that this was due to proposed lighting upgrades. The landlord committed to providing a further update on these works by 4 August 2023.
   3. It explained that the service charge team would respond to his queries about service charges by 28 July 2023.
   4. It confirmed that it would oversee the completion of the actions it agreed within its response. In recognition of the time and effort the resident had spent pursuing the complaints, the landlord offered him £125.
10. The resident referred his complaint to us. He was not satisfied with the following:
    1. The efficiency of the communication with the landlord.
    2. He did not consider that the landlord followed its policies. He provided the example of the responsive repairs and ASB.
    3. The accuracy of the service charges.
    4. The maintenance and security of the building.
    5. The landlord had not completed the cyclical works and security upgrades.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. Paragraph 42.b of our scheme rules state that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint if it was referred to us after 12 months of the date the complaint procedure was exhausted. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken.
12. The resident has stated throughout his correspondence that he raised 2 complaints to the landlord prior to 2022. He believes that there have been persistent failures by the landlord since the resolution of those earlier complaints. However, the previous complaints have been referred to us outside 12 months and we have not seen reasons why the resident was prevented from raising these complaints sooner. We have therefore not investigated the complaint issues from prior to 2022. Our assessment has considered the landlord’s responses to the matters raised within the resident’s complaint dated 4 August 2022 until the landlord provided its final response on 17 July 2023. Any references we have made to earlier complaints are included for context only. 

The landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block

13. Having reviewed the resident’s complaint it is evident that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall maintenance of the block and its management of repairs. The issues that he raised within the complaint included:
    1. The standard of work to the handrail.
    2. The standard of work to address the leak in the communal stairway.
    3. The time taken to resolve a leak into the lift.
    4. The repair to the door intercom.
    5. The repair to the car park gate.
    6. The time taken for the landlord to start the cyclical works.
14. I have considered the handling of these issues separately in deciding the overall complaint about landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block.

The landlord’s obligations under the lease

15. In accordance with the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair and redecoration of the main structure and common parts of the building.

The handrail

16. It is up to the landlord to decide how to complete decoration of the common parts of the building. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it had not painted the handrail. It agreed to carry out a post inspection of the handrail and to feedback the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the work. The landlord also confirmed that it would paint the handrail as part of the upcoming cyclical works.
17. Although the landlord agreed to inspect the work, it failed to clearly communicate the outcome or any planned follow up actions. In July 2023, nearly a year after the resident raised concern about the handrail, he reported that the landlord spray painted it, but again to an unsatisfactory standard. This prolonged delay from the initial complaint in August 2022 was unreasonable and demonstrates poor follow through by the landlord, particularly given its own commitment to post inspect the repair.

The leak in the common parts

18. The landlord advised that it was initially unable to identify the source of the leak but arranged for its contractor to attend on 18 November 2022 to carry out roof repairs that may have addressed the issue. Throughout its responses, the landlord confirmed that it would post inspect future works to ensure quality standards were met.
19. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, require landlords to: be fair, put things right (where they have gone wrong) and learn from outcomes. In order to be fair and put things right, landlords should respond to concerns about the quality of repairs in a timely, fair, and evidence-based manner. This includes arranging prompt inspections, acknowledging and rectifying issues, keeping residents informed, and providing appropriate redress, such as an apology, compensation, or service improvements, where necessary. This is part and parcel of a positive complaints culture.
20. The landlord acknowledged shortcomings in the quality of the repairs and agreed to repair the leak. However, the evidence shows it took an unreasonably long time to address the resident’s concerns. There were also inconsistencies in how it carried out and communicated the results of post inspections.
21. The landlord identified the leak was from the roof and it would complete roof repairs on 18 November 2022. It is unclear from the available records whether this took place. There is no evidence that the landlord repaired the ceiling until 8 September 2023, which represents a significant delay in completing the necessary remedial work.
22. While the landlord acknowledged the issues raised and made commitments to improve the quality and oversight of repair work, the evidence shows that it did not complete these actions promptly or effectively. The delays and lack of clear communication undermined the landlord’s assurances and left the resident without timely resolution. This contributed to a prolonged and frustrating experience for the resident.

The time taken to resolve a leak into the lift

23. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord should have responded to the leak into the lift quickly due to the impact on the lift’s functionality and the associated electrical risks. However, the landlord confirmed that it took 2 weeks to resolve the issue. In its response to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had not addressed the repairs to the lift leak within a reasonable time.

The repair to the door intercom

24. Regarding the car park gate, repair records indicate that residents were unable to access the gate using from approximately 18 October 2022 until 3 November 2022. Although the landlord’s policy does not categorise this as an emergency repair, it would have been reasonable to expect a prompt resolution, as the issue affected residents’ ability to access the car park.

The repair to the door intercom

25. The resident reported to the landlord that the intercom had not been working for “months.” It is unclear whether this referred to the front entry door intercom or the unit within the resident’s property. A repair order was raised on 16 March 2023, prior to the resident’s second complaint, but there are no earlier records of the issue being reported to the landlord, nor are there records confirming when the repair raised in March 2023 was completed.
26. The landlord confirmed that the intercom was operational at the time of its decision on 17 July 2023 and stated that it would check this during its inspection that day. It was reasonable for the landlord to verify the intercom’s functionality as part of its wider inspection of the block. Additionally, the landlord was aware of ongoing issues with vandalism to the front entrance door, which may have contributed to the reported problems with the intercom system.

The repair to the car park gate

27. The resident’s complaint regarding the cyclical works was that the landlord had promised these works years earlier but failed to commence them as indicated. In its stage 1 response dated 16 November 2022, the landlord stated that the works would begin at the start of 2023. However, the works did not begin as expected, and the landlord failed to proactively inform the resident of the delay. It later explained that the delay was due to proposed lighting upgrades. The landlord committed to providing an update by 4 August 2023 but did not do so until 23 August 2023. This lack of timely communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations contributed to unnecessary frustration and uncertainty regarding when the resident could expect cyclical works to start.
28. In communication to the resident on 1 September 2023 the landlord acknowledged its failure to deliver on the action plan it agreed in its stage 2 response.

Overall conclusions on the landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block

29. It is evident from the complaint and the landlord’s responses that a central theme of the resident’s dissatisfaction lies in the landlord’s poor communication and failure to uphold commitments made in relation to repairs and maintenance of the block. While the landlord did propose reasonable resolutions, such as committing to post inspect completed works and recognised the need for broader improvements to the block’s management, its actions were often delayed or inconsistently implemented. To build trust and effectively manage similar concerns in future, the landlord should ensure it carries out regular inspections of the block, maintains consistent and transparent communication with residents, and closely monitors the progress of any agreements or action plans it has made.
30. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block. While the resolutions that the landlord proposed were reasonable and it appropriately acknowledged that its service delivery required improvement, we have found that it failed to deliver on some of its promises within a reasonable time.
31. We have made an order of compensation for the landlord to pay the resident £200. This aligns with our remedies guidance and reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the repair and maintenance issues, as well as the landlord’s failure to act on agreed resolutions in a timely manner.

The landlord’s maintenance of the CCTV

32. The resident complained that the CCTV never seemed to work despite there being ASB in the block. He said that the landlord had lost the key and took several months to replace it, which left the resident’s endangered.
33. We do not have a copy of the landlord’s CCTV policy covering the time period relevant to the complaint. However, in its complaint response, the landlord confirmed that in March 2022 it discovered that 6 out of 12 cameras were not working and that the key to the CCTV cupboard was missing. It subsequently requested a padlock change. However, it did not raise an order for this until June 2022, and its contractor did not check the cameras until August 2022. Given that the landlord was aware of the issue from March 2022, this represents a significant delay in it acting to resolve the problem.
34. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not address the matter efficiently and apologised for the delay in resolving the CCTV issue. It confirmed that it would carry out monthly online checks of the system to ensure it remained operational.
35. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in its maintenance of the CCTV system. This is because there were delays in ensuring the cameras were working. However, the landlord acknowledged what it had got wrong and fully apologised. It has agreed to carry out regular checks. The landlord ought to have considered whether financial redress was appropriate considering the resident’s worries about ASB and access to the block. The Ombudsman considers that £100 compensation would recognise the impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures here.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block 

36. Throughout his complaint to the landlord the resident consistently reported that the block had ASB. In addition to his concerns about the security of the block, the resident reported that individuals who were not residents had the access code for the bin store. As a result, perpetrators of ASB were able to gain entry to the block. He said that this reinforced the need for the landlord to install a fob entry system on the bin store door. The landlord accepted that the bin store was an undesignated route into the building.
37. On 26 July 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would enquire with its contractor about obtaining a quote for a fob system. However, in October 2022 (following the resident’s complaint in August 2022), the landlord advised that it could not proceed with installation due to the security risks involved. While the landlord justified its decision to not install a fob system to the bin store door, it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations between July and October 2022, when it said it was seeking a quote. The resident had to chase the landlord for an update, and it was not until November 2022, 4 months later, that the landlord stated it would determine the most appropriate solution to prevent unauthorised access to the bin store. However, there is no evidence that it provided the resident with a clear update on what that decision was.
38. On 25 October 2022 the resident reported that the front entrance door had been vandalised for the fourth time. The landlord confirmed on 3 November 2022 that a contractor had attended the site. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 16 November 2022, the landlord said that its contractor made the door secure and that it was awaiting quotes for replacement components, as it intended to upgrade the latches to magnetic locks. It also explained that it was awaiting an update from the property manager on what action it was taking in response to the ASB. It agreed to inform the resident once it heard back.
39. On 18 November 2022 the resident reported that there was a serious incident outside the block and stated that the rear door to the block had been left propped open.
40. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time stated that, upon receiving an ASB report, it would inform the resident of who was handling the case, agree an action plan, and keep the resident updated on any steps taken. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any follow up or update about the wider ASB concerns within the communal areas including the rear door being propped open. There is no evidence it logged this as ASB, checked the CCTV or updated the resident. While there is some evidence that the landlord took steps to investigate the incident reported on 18 November 2022, it did not provide the resident with clarification on how it would address the resident’s concern about the security of the bin store area or the broader ASB issues affecting the block, as it had committed to.
41. The landlord stated in its final response to the complaint, that it would review the bin store security and determine the best course of action to prevent unauthorised access. Around September 2023, the landlord replaced the door ‘closer’ with a ‘heavy-duty door closer’ as the original was broken.
42. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. While there is some indication that the landlord investigated 1 specific incident, it failed to keep the resident informed of its actions to address the wider, ongoing ASB concerns raised. This fell short of its obligations under its ASB policy and contributed to the resident’s ongoing frustration and sense of insecurity.
43. Considering the maladministration identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the landlord’s failure to follow its own ASB policy, specifically its obligation to communicate with the resident, provide updates, and agree an action plan. While we have seen evidence that the landlord did take some steps to investigate 1 reported incident, its lack of follow-up and failure to address the wider concerns about ongoing ASB and security caused the resident avoidable distress, frustration, and a sense of being unsupported. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases involving maladministration that result in an adverse impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to queries concerning the service charges 

44. The resident complained that the service charges had increased 4 times without explanation. He said that he had not received a response from the service charge team to the questions he had raised.
45. It is not within our remit to consider complaints about the level of service charges, the amount of an increase or the reasonableness of service charges. The resident may approach the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) regarding concerns about the level, increase, or reasonableness of service charges. We can consider the content and timeliness of the information the landlord provides in relation to service charges.
46. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was seeking an explanation for the increases in service charges. It confirmed that the head of service charges would respond to the resident by 28 July 2023.
47. However, the landlord failed to meet this commitment. It did not notify the resident that it would be unable to respond by the promised date, and as a result, the resident had to chase the matter on 23 August 2023. The landlord eventually provided a response, including input from the head of service charges, on 1 September 2023. At that time, it apologised for not meeting the original deadline.
48. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, we must view the delay in the broader context of the resident’s overall complaint, that the landlord repeatedly failed to follow through on agreed actions within stated timeframes. Although the missed deadline for this update was minor in isolation, it contributed to the resident’s ongoing frustration and reinforced his perception that the landlord’s service was unreliable. In this context, the delay compounded the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
49. We therefore find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charges. We have also made an order for £100 compensation in recognition of the additional inconvenience caused.
50. The order for £100 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends this level of compensation for service failures that caused some impact and some inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. In this case, while the delay in providing the service charge update was minor on its own, it contributed to a wider pattern of unfulfilled commitments that compounded the resident’s dissatisfaction. The amount reflects the cumulative effect of the landlord’s failure while remaining proportionate to the level of detriment experienced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

51. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time was a 2 stage process, with an aim to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 10 working days of the panel meeting at stage 2.
52. The landlord did not meet these timeframes in all its responses to the complaint however, we have seen evidence that it kept the resident informed of some delays, particularly in relation to its stage 1 response to the complaint submitted on 4 August 2022. There was a service failure in the handling of the second complaint, which the landlord raised on 26 October 2022. While the landlord agreed to extend the stage 1 response deadline to 11 November 2022, it did not issue the response until 16 November 2022, and there is no evidence that it informed the resident of this further delay.
53. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 9 September 2022 the resident raised new concerns that were not part of his initial complaint dated 4 August 2022. The landlord appropriately treated these as a separate complaint and formally logged them on 26 October 2022, in line with the expectations of our Complaint Handling Code. It also acted fairly by allowing the resident additional time to submit his stage 2 review request.
54. The landlord decided to address both complaints through a single stage 2 investigation. This was a reasonable and fair approach, as it considered the issues holistically and made the process clearer and more manageable for the resident.
55. The landlord’s offer of £125 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing his complaints was reasonable. This reflected the extended period over which the resident remained engaged in the process and acknowledged the delay in issuing the stage 1 response to the second complaint.
56. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although there was a delay in providing the stage 1 response to the second complaint, the compensation offered was proportionate to the impact on the resident and addressed the service failure. As there is no evidence the £125 compensation has been paid, we recommend the landlord ensures this payment is made if it has not already been.

Determination

57. Having considered all the evidence we have determined that:
    1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block.
    2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s maintenance of the CCTV.
    3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block.
    4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries concerning the service charges.
    5. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

58. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident £550 comprising:
       1. £200 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s maintenance and management of repairs to the block.
       2. £100 in recognition of the impact caused by the handling of the CCTV.
       3. £150 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB.
       4. £100 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to his service charge queries.

The £550 compensation that we have ordered should be paid directly to the resident.

2. Write to the resident confirming what cyclical works are outstanding and when they are likely to be completed.
3. Review and confirm whether it is able to implement a regular method of communication with the resident and other residents of the block, to keep them informed about relevant matters such as repairs, maintenance, and anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues in the block. This could include a regular email update/newsletter/noticeboard or digital area in the resident’s online tenant account which includes:
   1. Updates on outstanding repair and maintenance issues within the block.
   2. Action plans or timelines for addressing identified problems.
   3. General building management updates, where relevant.

The landlord must write to the resident and the Ombudsman outlining its position (within 4 weeks of the date of this determination). If a method of communication already exists (for example, via a residents’ association, newsletter, noticeboard, or digital platform), the landlord should explain this in its response.

4. Provide documentary evidence to the Ombudsman on compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the amounts it agreed for complaint handling during the complaint procedure.