Southern Housing (202322976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322976

Southern Housing

9 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns that an engineer entered the property without her permission.
   2. Related complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2013. She and her 2 children lived in the property, a mid-terrace house, between 2013 and 2025. The resident is disabled and her children have a number of vulnerabilities.
3. In May 2023 the resident called the landlord about an engineer who was acting on its behalf. She said they had entered the property without permission while she was getting dressed with her daughter. She chased the landlord about her concerns in June 2023. At this point, it raised a formal complaint about the engineer’s conduct. It subsequently asked its contractor for information about the engineer’s visit. It eventually received a detailed reply in September 2023.
4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response soon afterwards. It took several measures to address the resident’s concerns. It also awarded her a total of £300 in compensation. This was based on the impact of the reported incident, and a related complaint handling delay. It upheld the complaint based on the delay. The resident escalated her complaint about 1 week later. She was unhappy with various aspects of the landlord’s overall handling.
5. In late September 2023 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident directly. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience that she had been caused by the engineer’s visit. It said it had taken several steps in response to her concerns. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in October 2023. It identified some additional failures at this point. It upheld the complaint based on these failures. It increased its previous compensation award by £60.
6. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. She updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in June 2025. She said the engineer’s conduct had a long-term adverse impact on her family. She also said the landlord had trivialised her concerns and shown a lack of accountability. She felt it should improve its performance. She questioned whether its overall compensation award was fair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has raised serious concerns about the landlord’s engineer. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the engineer’s actions amounted to misconduct. Similarly, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings. The resident is encouraged to take legal advice if she wants to pursue these matters through the courts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the engineer

8. On 24 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to test some fire alarms. The resident has said its engineer entered the property without her permission. In addition, she said she was getting dressed with her daughter at the time. She also said that the situation caused an altercation between the parties. The engineer later provided a different account of the visit. However, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s version of events. Since the contractor was acting as its agent, the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions.
9. The resident called the landlord on the day of the visit. She was unhappy with the engineer’s conduct. The landlord has not supplied a copy of its call notes. While this is concerning, it has accepted that her initial report was consistent with the description in paragraph 8 above. Given the resident’s account of the engineer’s visit, it is understandable that she was concerned and/or distressed. It is reasonable to conclude her report warranted a swift and effective response. In contrast, it is unclear how the landlord responded to her call at this point.
10. On 19 June 2023 the resident called the landlord again for an update. It raised a formal complaint for her at this stage. We have considered its complaint handling in the relevant section below. Later that month, the landlord issued a complaint acknowledgment to the resident. It said it understood that:
    1. She was shocked that the engineer had entered the property unannounced.
    2. She had asked the engineer to leave but they did not comply at first.
    3. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication following her report.
11. On 5 July 2023 the landlord asked its contractor to provide details of the engineer’s visit. Its request for information shows that it had started to investigate the resident’s concerns. It is noted the landlord made this request about 6 weeks after the resident made it aware of her concerns on the day of the visit. In general, the passage of time can make it more difficult for a landlord to complete a thorough investigation.
12. Call notes show the landlord spoke to the resident later that month. She said she felt that her privacy had been violated. She also said that, due to the incident, her family felt unsafe in the property. She wanted the landlord to complete a detailed investigation. She also said it should at least apologise to her. The landlord exchanged emails with its contractor several days later. It said it was not satisfied with the contractor’s response to its previous enquiries. The exchange shows that, by this time, the landlord had recognised the serious and sensitive nature of the resident’s report and associated concerns.
13. During the exchange, the landlord said the engineer should not have entered the property of their own accord. It also said they should have reported any incidents on the day of the visit. It was appropriate for the landlord to remind its contractor about these key expectations. The contractor said its engineer was on leave and it would not be able to consult them for several weeks. It later relayed the engineer’s comments to the landlord in early September 2023. This was around 16 weeks after the resident had raised concerns about the visit. It is noted that a considerable amount of time had elapsed since then.
14. In summary, the engineer disputed the key aspects of the resident’s complaint. They denied entering the property without her permission. They also denied that they had seen her undressed, or that there had been an altercation between the parties. They did not mention the resident’s daughter at all. The engineer did accept that the resident had ultimately asked them to leave. They said they had promptly complied with her request. It is noted there is a significant variation between the engineer’s recollection and the resident’s version of events. It is likely that this put the landlord in a difficult position.
15. The landlord called the resident on 13 September 2023. The parties discussed the engineer’s recollection of events. Call notes show the resident disputed this information and became distressed. She felt the engineer “may be some type of predator”. She said her daughter was “suffering badly from anxiety” and would not sleep in her own room or go to school. The landlord made some internal enquiries on the same date. It asked whether it could implement any security measures to help the resident feel safe. This was a reasonable approach.
16. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on the same date. It noted it had received 2 different accounts of the engineer’s visit. However, it acknowledged the impact on the resident and her family. It awarded her £250 in related compensation to address this. It said the contractor would complete an internal investigation. It also said it had taken steps to ensure that the contractor would not visit the property again. It promised to discuss additional security measures with the resident in due course. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
    1. It would not be able to discuss the outcome of the contractor’s investigation with the resident (presumably for data protection reasons).
    2. It had asked its operatives to call the resident 30 minutes before they attended the property (going forwards).
    3. It had taken steps to ensure that a female member of staff would be present during any repair visits in the future.
    4. The resident could contact a third-party support service using the details that were provided.
17. The landlord did not have a definitive account of the engineer’s visit. However, there was evidence that it had made the resident feel uncomfortable. This is because the resident and the engineer both agreed that she had asked them to leave the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the contractor should have promptly told the landlord about this. Had it done so, the landlord may have created a detailed record of the visit. Ultimately, it was unable to fully confirm what had happened. The evidence suggests that a procedural failure contributed to this uncertainty. Given the information that was available, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge an adverse impact to the resident.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy shows it can award a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. It will consider compensation on a case-by-case basis. It will also reflect various factors in its calculations. These include the severity and impact of any failure. The policy says the landlord’s calculations are based on the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. In this case, the landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation in relation to the reported incident. This figure was in line with its policy. We find it was a reasonable and proportionate award given the evidence that was available.
19. The landlord’s response shows it had engaged with the resident’s serious concerns accordingly. For example, it made some adjustments to its standard repairs service. This was to help the resident feel safe during appointments. It also referred her to an external support agency. In addition, the landlord took steps to investigate the matter further (through its contractor). This was a sensitive, proportionate, and reasonable approach in the circumstances.
20. Later, in its case evidence file, the landlord told us the resident had confirmed that she did not need a female operative to attend each repair appointment. It is unclear when she asked the landlord to remove its corresponding instruction. However, the above suggests that the parties did discuss additional security measures. This was consistent with the commitment in the landlord’s stage 1 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to adhere to its commitment.
21. On 19 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it should have treated her initial report on 24 May 2023 as a serious incident. She questioned whether the police should have been involved. She felt the landlord should have at least advised her to contact them. She said its overall handling had compounded her family’s distress. She highlighted their existing vulnerabilities. She also referenced a repair visit which had occurred earlier that day. The resident’s other key points were:
    1. Her daughter was “suffering from extreme anxiety” due to the engineer’s conduct. The resident had left her job to look after her daughter.
    2. The landlord’s handling had affected her mental health. Its compensation award did not reflect the severity of the incident that she had reported, or the extent of its failures.
    3. In relation to its most recent visit, the landlord’s operative had not contacted the resident before they arrived. This was contrary to the landlord’s previous commitment. The visit had made her family feel “very uncomfortable”.
22. On 26 September 2023 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident directly. It apologised for any distress or inconvenience that she had been caused. It said its engineer had “strongly denied any wrongdoing”. Nevertheless, it said it had removed them from the landlord’s contract and placed a record of the complaint on their personal file. In addition, the contractor said it had reminded its employees about its process for gaining access to a property. It also said it had made some improvements to this process. It assured the resident that each of its engineers had been subjected to a rigorous background check. This letter was a positive step from the landlord and its contractor. It is further evidence that they had ultimately taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
23. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 October 2023. It awarded the resident some additional compensation for complaint handling failures. We have considered its award in the complaint handling section below. In relation to the engineer’s visit, it said that the information in its previous response was accurate. It also reiterated the information in the contractor’s apology letter. It said that, as the affected party, involving the police was a matter for the resident. It confirmed that it would cooperate with any police investigation. In summary, the landlord’s response confirms it had not changed its position in relation to the resident’s main complaint (about the engineer’s conduct).
24. The landlord said it was for the resident to decide whether to involve the police or not. There is no indication that it was obliged to report any incidents on her behalf. In addition, it is likely that the resident was in a better position to make a detailed report about events during the engineer’s visit. The landlord could have informed her that she could contact the police previously. However, there is no indication it was obliged to do this either. Given the above, we find its approach to the resident’s related concerns was reasonable. Ultimately, the landlord should have completed its own investigation and the evidence shows it did this.
25. In relation to the landlord’s overall approach at stage 2, there is no indication it had received any different information at this point. In other words, there is no indication that it was in a position to verify more of the resident’s concerns about the engineer’s conduct, or events during the visit. From the information provided, the landlord based each of its complaint responses on the evidence that was available. This approach is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations. Overall, we find it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain its previous position (from its stage 1 response). As mentioned, it has shown that it took the resident’s key concerns about the engineer’s conduct seriously.
26. In early November 2023 the landlord approved a management move (a priority move to another one of its properties) for the resident. The circumstances around its decision are unclear. There is a gap in the evidence subsequently. Later, the resident updated the Ombudsman in April 2024. She felt the landlord’s approach was dismissive and its compensation was inadequate. She told us her daughter was having therapy due to the associated distress.
27. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in June 2025. She told us the engineer’s conduct had a significant and prolonged impact on her family. She stressed that she and her daughter were in a vulnerable position when the engineer entered the property. She said her daughter’s therapy had ended recently and the treatment was expensive. She also said the landlord had recently moved the family. She felt her complaint had played a role in its decision. She said she had not reported her concerns to the police at any point.
28. In summary, while we appreciate the significant distress that the situation has caused to the resident and her daughter, we find that the landlord recognised the serious nature of her concerns in its complaint responses. It took various steps to address these and to reassure her. For example, it made adjustments to its standard repairs service to help her feel more comfortable. This was a sensitive approach. The landlord was in a difficult position because there were conflicting accounts of the engineer’s visit. It was unable to fully confirm what had happened. The evidence indicates it was ultimately responsible for a procedural failure that contributed to this uncertainty. It rightly acknowledged the related impact to the resident. It awarded her a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation, which reflected the available evidence and its compensation policy. Overall, we find it did enough to address the resident’s concerns about the engineer’s conduct. This represents reasonable redress by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

29. From 24 May 2023 onwards there were various problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, its complaints policy defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of [its] service, actions … or staff”. The resident’s initial call was consistent with this definition. However, it did not prompt the landlord to raise a formal complaint. If it was unsure how to proceed, the landlord could have proactively asked the resident if she wanted to raise a complaint. There is no indication it did this. Given the nature of her call, its approach was concerning and inadequate.
30. Based on the period between 24 May and 13 September 2023, it took the landlord around 12 weeks to issue a stage 1 response. Its complaints policy says it should acknowledge complaints in 5 working days at each stage. It is noted that, when it did raise a complaint on 19 June 2023, the landlord did not adhere to this timescale. The policy also says it should issue a response within 10 working days of an acknowledgement. If it needs more time, the landlord should update the resident and provide an expected response timescale. In summary, its policy aims to manage expectations and keep residents informed.
31. In this case, the landlord told the resident that it needed more investigation time on 14 July 2023. Its correspondence said it would issue a response within 10 working days subsequently. The landlord also said it would call the resident on 17 July 2023. This was to provide an update on her complaint. The landlord subsequently exceeded its revised response timescale. Similarly, there is no indication it called the resident as promised. Overall, the above information shows it did not adhere to key aspects of its policy (or its underlying aims). This was inappropriate complaint handling and its communication was inadequate.
32. The evidence confirms the resident was impacted. Between 19 June and 12 September 2023 she called the landlord around 4 times about her complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her. With better communication, the landlord may have avoided some of these calls and the associated impact to the resident. It is noted she has consistently referenced unreasonable delays and poor communication during her complaint. Her comments are consistent with the evidence that we have seen.
33. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address it. Its compensation policy says it should compensate complaint handling failures at a rate of either £15 or £50. The landlord’s award was consistent with the guidance in its policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow its relevant policy. However, its response wording indicates it did not recognise the full extent of its failures at this point. If it had, it could have reasonably awarded more compensation to the resident.
34. In its stage 1 response, the landlord promised to make some adjustments to its repairs service. These included instructing its operatives to call the resident around 30 minutes before any appointments. On 14 September 2023 it updated its systems to reflect the adjustments. However, its update did not mention its instruction to call the resident. This shows the landlord failed to follow up one of its key complaint resolutions. This was unreasonable and points to a record keeping issue. The resident subsequently reported that the landlord had failed to follow its adjusted process. Her comments show she was distressed by this.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 September 2023. The landlord issued her an acknowledgement 7 working days later. Although there was a short delay at this point, there is no indication the resident chased the landlord during the interim period. The acknowledgement said the landlord would issue a stage 2 response by 28 October 2023. It subsequently issued a response on this date. The response included a timeline of events which began with the resident’s initial call in May 2023. This shows the landlord considered the resident’s complaint journey in detail. This was a reasonable approach.
36. The landlord used its timeline to identify 4 additional service failures. Most of these had occurred at stage 1. It referenced its initial failure to follow its complaints process. It mentioned 2 occasions where it had failed to call the resident about her complaint as promised. It also mentioned its (later) failure to call the resident 30 minutes before a repair appointment. It apologised for the level of service that it had provided across the whole complaint timeline. It awarded the resident a further £60 in compensation to address the additional issues it had found. It used its compensation policy to calculate this figure (4 x £15 = £60). This was a reasonable approach. There is no evidence to show it has overlooked any additional failures which adversely impacted the resident.
37. In summary, the evidence supports some of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling. There were times when it did not adhere to its complaints policy and its communication was inadequate. However, it eventually considered the resident’s complaint journey in detail. Having done so, it identified its key failures and followed the guidance in its compensation policy. In total, it awarded the resident £110 in compensation for complaint handling delays and failures. We find this was a reasonable and proportionate figure given the corresponding impact to her. There is no evidence to show the landlord has overlooked any additional failures. Given the above, we find it did enough to put things right. This represents reasonable redress by the landlord.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns that an engineer entered the property without her permission.
    2. Related complaint handling.

Recommendations

39. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £360 in compensation which it offered her during its internal complaints process. It should deduct any part of this figure that has already been paid.
40. The landlord should issue a brief reminder to its relevant staff about the key learnings from this case. The reminder should emphasise the importance of responding swiftly and effectively to reports of serious incidents or allegations. It should also stress the importance of following up any agreed complaint resolutions.