Southern Housing (202318597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318597

Southern Housing

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of noise nuisance.
2. Reports of leaks and the associated temporary repairs.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the 4th floor of a block of flats (‘the block’). He has lived at the property since its construction in May 2018.
In his communication with the landlord, the resident says that he first reported a leak into his bedroom from the flat above to the builder in February 2020. He reported the issues to the landlord in December 2020. The landlord had issues with the developer returning to complete works so it began a claim to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) on 4 January 2021. There is no recorded outcome of this claim available to the Ombudsman.
The resident reported excess noise caused by the neighbour walking in the flat above in the end of defects report sent to the landlord on 14 January 2021. He reiterated his concerns on 7 February 2022. The developer had told the landlord on 9 March 2021 that there was no works defect that would cause noise transference issues.
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the leak on 10 October 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this complaint.
The resident made further reports of noise nuisance in October 2022 and January, May, and June 2023.
The resident complained on 28 September 2023. He said the leak was causing damage to his wall and damp in the property. He added that his neighbour had wooden flooring in the room above his bedroom which caused noise to travel excessively and frequently woke him in the night. He wanted the landlord to provide a plan to resolve the repairs and address the noise transference from the flat above.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 October 2023. It said:
1. The resident reported the leak to the developer on 4 March 2020. It was unable to find any outcome or action recorded by the developer.
2. In a response to his MP on 6 October 2022, it acknowledged the issues with the contractor and accepted responsibility for repairing the leak.
3. It assigned a contractor to assess the defects (which also affected other residents) in January 2023. However, there were issues with the contractor so it instructed a building consultant to conduct a defect analysis in October 2023. It advised it assessed the leaks, damp, windows, and balcony doors on 10–11 October 2023 and would share the report once it was available.
4. It was unable to find any reports from the resident about noise nuisance other than a report of loud music in August 2019. It passed works to its contractor to conduct an acoustic test to establish if there were soundproofing issues between the properties. It directed him to its home ownership team and the local Council to report noise nuisance.
5. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the defects and said it was taking measures to resolve them as soon as possible.
6. It apologised for complaint handling failures. It recognised that the resident had complained on 10 October 2022 and it had not acknowledged or responded to the complaint.
7. It offered the resident £250 compensation, which comprised of £100 for inconvenience, time, and trouble, and £150 for complaint handling delays.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and sought to escalate his complaint on 24 October 2023. He disputed the landlord’s timeline and listed the dates he had reported noise nuisance. He was concerned about some temporary repairs done by the landlord to repair the leak, which were ineffective. He wanted the landlord to repair the leak, make good the damage, and resolve the noise transference. He asked that it review its offer of compensation once the works were complete. He also listed remedial action suggested by the landlord in July 2021. This included:
1. Remove window to allow inspection of joints.
2. Check window casing and insulation, soffit panels, and brackets.
3. Check cavity trays and weep vents.
4. Check waterproofing details.
5. Reinstate window and make good.
The landlord wrote to the resident to request extensions for its stage 2 response on 6 November, 4 December, and 18 December 2023.
The landlord sent a claim to the NHBC on 11 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. The landlord:
1. Apologised for not responding to his noise reports and acknowledged his report in January 2021.
2. Said that the developer informed the landlord that they would not accept the noise transference works as a defect in March 2021. It conducted its own investigation in November 2023 which found the floors met the minimum standards for sound insulation.
3. Advised it referred the leak to the NHBC and was providing monthly updates to residents.
4. Said that it had used mastic to seal the window lintel casing to repair the leak through the window. It reviewed the resident’s photos which identified issues with the cavity tray.
5. Reoffered the £250 compensation set out in its stage 1 response.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2024. He wanted the landlord to repair the water leak and put right any damage. He also wanted it to put right a temporary repair around the window lintel and confirm his neighbour above had a suitable floor covering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord referred the resident’s complaint regarding the structural issues causing the leak into the property to the NHBC. The NHBC are a warranty provider for new build homes and therefore a financial service. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over any claims made to the NHBC. The resident may wish to escalate any complaint related to the NHBC to the Financial Ombudsman Service. We can, however, consider the landlord’s handling of leaks at the property and if it acted fairly and reasonably in response to the resident’s reports.
We acknowledge that the resident had concerns about the windows and level of service provided by the landlord since he moved into the property in 2018. However, it would be unfair to assess the landlord’s response to these earlier reports. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s responses from 10 October 2022 onwards. This is when the resident first raised the issues to the landlord as a complaint. We have considered events after the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2024 as the issues remain unresolved.

Policies and procedures

The NHBC guarantee insures properties against latent defects present from the construction of the property and for a period of 10 years. The guarantee only covers faults present due to failure to build properties in line with construction guidelines and does not cover faults due to wear and tear, neglect, or damage.

Reports of noise nuisance

The lease agreement lists covenants which the resident must comply with while occupying the property. Part 2 of the eighth schedule of the lease refers to a requirement to have a suitable floor covering of all floors in the property. This includes either carpet and underfelt, or vinyl, or sound absorbing tiles. It is reasonable to determine that the same covenants effect the other properties within the block.
Upon receipt of the resident’s noise reports, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and investigated. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy at the time said it would undertake a risk assessment on receipt of a report. It will investigate the ASB, take action to stop further incidents, and agree an action plan. There was no evidence to show the landlord took any steps to investigate whether the noise was a result of ASB or not.
The resident showed that he reported issues with noise transference 3 times between January and October 2022. He made 3 further reports between January and June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge, or address, any of these reports early in the timeline and this was unacceptable. It did not risk assess, investigate, or agree an action plan. It failed to follow its own policy and procedures and treated the resident unfairly as a result.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s earlier noise reports in its stage 1 response. It did not consider that the resident had reported noise nuisance for 2 years up to that point. It was not fair and did not learn from outcomes.
Although it did not effectively consider its failure to address his reports sooner, it appropriately scheduled a survey to assess the noise transference from the flat above. It was also reasonable to provide the resident with contact details for its home ownership team and the local council’s noise nuisance team. Its response showed its intention to resolve the resident’s substantive noise nuisance issues and put things right.
In his reports to the landlord, the resident said he wanted the landlord to assess the flooring used by the neighbour. He was concerned that they were using an unsuitable floor covering which had worsened the noise transference. The landlord did not fully address this concern in any of its responses to the resident and this was a failing.
In its stage 2 response in January 2024, the landlord apologised for its oversight and referred to the resident’s reports from January 2021. It appropriately provided the outcome of its acoustic investigation. However, it did not set out how it considered if the neighbour above had a suitable floor covering. It did not address the failure to acknowledge or respond to his noise reports from 2022 and 2023. It did not treat the resident fairly, put things right, or learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of noise nuisance. The landlord conducted a suitable acoustic test in November 2023 to investigate for possible structural defects that may cause noise transference. However, it did not reflect on its failures to investigate the residents reports of noise nuisance throughout the timeline, including the floor covering issue. It did not take any action to learn from this oversight or consider the impact these failings had on the resident. It was not fair and did not put things right.
The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for circumstances where the landlord’s failure had an adverse impact on a resident. As the freeholder for the block, the landlord should also confirm if there is appropriate insulation and underlay present in the flat above.

Reports of leaks and the associated temporary repairs

The landlord has not disputed that it was responsible for repairing the leak into the property. This was a structural defect present from construction which impacted several properties within the development. The property remains under the NHBC guarantee and it is therefore appropriate for the landlord to pursue its case through them.
The leak is present in the resident’s bedroom. The landlord was aware of the leak and the impact this had on the resident throughout the timeline. As water penetration can lead to other substantial disrepair, the landlord should have considered remedial works to mitigate the impact on the resident. Despite its knowledge of the leaks, the landlord’s records do not describe any intermediate remedial action to mitigate the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s communication early in the timeline was poor. It did not effectively update the resident regarding the works. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions for updates about the repair work and asked for an action plan. The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on several occasions. The lack of response added to the frustration and distress he experienced.
While we understand the limitations of the landlord in completing works itself, it was slow in submitting a claim to NHBC. There are records of a claim made in January 2021 that the landlord did not progress and or update the resident about. The landlord should have supported the resident better, managed his expectations, and taken steps to progress the matter quickly. It should have explained how long the process could take and what it could do to manage the ongoing issue in the meantime.
The landlord’s records do not show that it took any proactive action during 2022 to pursue the repairs. This meant the resident later spent additional time and trouble pursuing the landlord for updates. While we understand and appreciate that the landlord was arranging the repairs through a third party, it still has a responsibility to support the resident. It should communicate regularly, manage his expectations, and seek a prompt resolution. It did not and this contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s communication improved later in the timeline. Between June and October 2023, it provided monthly newsletters and held meetings with the residents. It shared details of its plans to resolve the internal repairs and the wider structural defects at the block. It demonstrated reasonable oversight of the contractors and shared the issues it experienced with the residents. When its first contractor was unable to perform the survey or associated repairs satisfactorily, it appropriately ended the contract in July 2023. It effectively communicated this decision to the residents and promptly instructed new contractors to survey the block.
Minutes from meetings held in August 2023 show the landlord effectively communicated the difficulties it had with the contractors. It explained that the former contractor had underestimated the scope of works and failed to meet deadlines. It was therefore appropriate to appoint a new contractor. Additionally, its minutes show that it discussed compensation payments with residents. It said the issues it experienced with its contractors would be “factored into the compensation package”.
In its stage 1 response in October 2023, the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience experienced by the resident over several years and appropriately apologised. It showed that it was progressing the repairs and taking appropriate action to resolve them. However, the resident had reported the same disrepair over at least 2 years to that point. Its offer of £100 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble did not reflect the detriment caused.
In his request to escalate his complaint in October 2023, the resident said the landlord’s interim repairs consisted of painting over the water damage. He was concerned about the contractor’s decision to seal an exterior frame with mastic, as this was not in keeping with the other frames. He felt the work was unsightly and ineffective. He asked the landlord to remove the mastic as it seemed to be a mistake. He asked the landlord to review its offer of compensation once the works were complete. This was a reasonable request in the circumstances.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the temporary repairs in its stage 2 response. It did not address the painting over of the water damage at all. It did give some information about its decision to use mastic in its attempts to seal around the casing to the window lintel. However, it did not say if the work was effective, or if it would remove the mastic and put right any damage as requested.
The landlord acknowledged there were failings in its handling of the matter and demonstrated it was arranging to resolve the defects under its NHBC claim. It showed that it had improved its communication and was providing regular updates to residents. It reiterated its offer of £100 compensation in its stage 2 response. However, it did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It did not address the list of recommended remedial action to reduce the impact of the damp and mould. It did not consider the resident’s request to review its offer of compensation once the works were complete. It did not treat the resident fairly or put things right in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks and the associated temporary repairs. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its complaint responses. It appropriately appointed a second contractor when the first was unable to perform as required. It improved its communication late in the timeline and provided regular updates to its residents.
However, it did not fully resolve the resident’s complaints. It did not demonstrate how it had reduced the impact of the leaks, damp, and mould on the resident. Its offer of £100 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to him. If the landlord was awaiting an increased compensation determination following the completion of the works (as suggested in August meetings), it should have made this clear in its complaint response.
The landlord should pay the resident an additional £300 compensation. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for the landlord’s failure to address the overall detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated temporary repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Write to the resident to offer an update on progress of the NHBC claim and what actions it will undertake to increase the speed of the process.
3. Pay the resident £700 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £100 offered for distress, time, and trouble set out in its complaint responses.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of noise nuisance.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of leaks and the associated temporary repairs.
4. Inspect the property above and confirm if there is a suitable floor covering with underlay present. It should provide the outcome of the inspection to the resident and Ombudsman. If it identifies a breach of the lease agreement, it should take reasonable action to remedy this within 8 weeks of the inspection.
5. Inspect the property and decide if the mastic seal used on the external window door frame is effective at preventing water penetration. If it is not effective, then the landlord should remove the mastic.
6. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should re-offer the £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures, if it has not paid this to the resident.
We have investigated similar complaints related to this block and the landlord’s response in case 202302554. We ordered the landlord to review its practice in relation to its response to latent defect requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould. In addition, we ordered the landlord to consider compensation commensurate with the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced following its review. The landlord should provide an update to the resident based on this review and any consideration it has made to compensation for these defects.