Southern Housing (202323443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323443

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports about the front door.
2. The resident’s reports about increased heating costs due to the door issues.
3. The resident’s reports about subsidence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is aware the resident has vulnerabilities but says it has no needs on records.
In September 2022, the resident reported issues with the front door, including that the door did not seem stable within the brickwork and moved. The same month, the landlord’s contractor inspected and said the door worked fine, but further investigation was needed for cracks around the door frame.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update several times in November 2022. She said that the door did not close properly, opened by itself, and made her property cold.
In January 2023, a surveyor inspected. They noted that the resident was concerned that there is loose brick work to the side of the front door which was covered some years ago by a PVC panel. They noted the door and frame were in good condition but the door frame leg and trim were loose. They noted they would ask a contractor to resolve this.
The resident contacted the landlord multiple times for updates from April 2023 and in June and July 2023, she said:
1. she was concerned the January 2023 surveyor had not put in a report.
2. the front door had been insecure due to the brickwork for 7 months.
3. she was frightened grandchildren and dogs could get out and get run over.
4. she had not received promised callbacks and this was affecting her vulnerabilities and mental health.
On 13 July 2023, the landlord logged a formal complaint. It noted the resident had not heard anything about a brickwork repair after a January 2023 inspection. The landlord’s contractor subsequently inspected and it raised a repair on 25 July 2023 to remove PVC cover strips and strengthen timber studwork.
The landlord says it responded at stage 1 on 27 July 2023:
1. It said the repair was not lost but it had been handed from surveyor to surveyor. It acknowledged that timeframes had not been kept.
2. It confirmed that after a July 2023 inspection it had raised a repair to ensure it opened and closed correctly. It said its contractor would contact the resident to book this in.
3. It apologised and awarded £85 for the delays and the time and trouble the resident had experienced. It said she should escalate the complaint by 24 August 2023 if she was dissatisfied.
On 15 September 2023, the landlord’s contractor report they took off the door, added a fixing and trimmed and sealed. They noted the door now worked correctly. Following this, the resident reported there was still a gap around her front door. She also reported in September and October 2023 that she had not received a written response.
On 17 October 2023, the landlord inspected. It noted that daylight showed through the door and a new door was required. It recommended actions to draughtproof the door and refer cracks to its insurance team.
On 9 November 2023, the insurance team’s contractor inspected. They reported that there was no subsidence and cracks were due to wear and tear and thermal expansion and contraction. They also noted that the front door was ill fitting. They noted that on review of neighbouring properties, a panel of brickwork had been removed to allow the installation of the UPVC door and frame. They said that this appeared to have compromised the door as it now stuck and let in draughts.
On 20 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended to do draughtproofing but noted the resident would not let them do this. They noted that the shutting side of the frame was fixed to a timber support, as there was no brickwork to fix this to. They noted that this allowed the door to move and caused most of the problems.
On 22 November 2023, after speaking to the resident, the landlord escalated the complaint and sent an acknowledgement. This noted she complained about the front door and frame, and subsidence, and that she wanted compensation for heat loss. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 29 November 2023 and clarified her complaint. She said she had not received a 27 July 2023 written response or callbacks after chasing the issues. She said the door issue was with the frame. She said she had not raised subsidence and this was something the landlord and its contractor were debating.
The landlord provided its final response on 14 December 2023:
1. It noted that an operative confirmed the door worked correctly on 15 September 2023 after works. It noted an individual then confirmed on 17 October 2023 that no further repairs could be done and a new door was needed. It said the contractor would contact the resident to fit a new door after she confirmed the door she wanted. It said it aimed to replace the door by 22 January 2024 and it would monitor this.
2. It said the resident’s concerns about subsidence were passed to its insurance team. It noted their contractor had inspected on 2 November 2023 and it had asked the insurance team to update her with the outcome. It said it aimed to confirm any required subsidence work by 31 January 2024 and it would monitor this.
3. In a separate letter the same day, it awarded £30 for complaint delays.
The landlord subsequently noted the resident said it was costing her too much to heat her home and believed £100 would be more acceptable, which it was to discuss with her on 19 December 2023. It also noted she wanted brickwork around the door repaired before the new door was fitted. It noted that it would inspect and raise necessary works if she called after the new door was in place.
The resident’s front door was subsequently replaced in March 2024. She says the front door is less problematic, but she has to be careful shutting it. She raises dissatisfaction the landlord has not addressed the brickwork or compensation for draughts. She noted contractors had said there was no subsidence but she raised concerns that they lacked expertise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident refers to other issues such as a rear door and damp and mould. This investigation focuses on the front door and subsidence issues, as it is evident that these were the main focus of her complaint and the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to raise a complaint about these issues if she is unhappy with how it has handled them.
The resident has raised issues with the front door since at least September 2022. This investigation focuses on events since January 2023, around 6 months before she complained, in line with our then Scheme and the landlord’s own policy at that time.

The resident’s reports about the front door

The landlord’s surveyor inspected in January 2023. They found the door was in good condition but identified works for loose elements of the frame. The landlord then inspected again in July 2023 and completed identified works in September 2023.
The landlord inspected in October 2023 after the works and recommended to replace the door and do draughtproofing. The contractor’s November 2023 attendance for draughtproofing and the March 2024 replacement of the door shows the landlord progressed these and sought to take interim and permanent steps to resolve door issues.
The landlord’s July and September 2023 actions were 6 and 8 months after the January 2023 inspection, so it was appropriate to acknowledge delays after this. It was also positive to offer compensation that included an amount for a failure to repair the brickwork by the front door. However, it is not satisfactory that it otherwise fails to show it addressed or took action for the brickwork issue in any substantial way.
The resident raised issues related to the brickwork for some time and queried if a new door would resolve matters. The November 2023 visits support presence of an issue. The insurance contractor said brickwork was removed when the door and frame were originally installed. This had compromised the door and led to it sticking. The draughtproofing operative said one side of the frame was fixed to a timber support, as there was no brickwork to fix to. This allowed the door to move and caused problems.
The landlord did note in December 2023 that the resident wanted brickwork around the door repaired before the new door was fitted. It said it would inspect and raise necessary works if she called after the new door was installed. This shows it made some commitments to follow up. However, it is unclear a new door addressed potential underlying issues indicated by the November 2023 visits.
The landlord should have shown that it clearly considered how the new door resolved, or could be impacted by, the reported brickwork issues. This would have shown that it considered matters in a holistic way, was trying to effectively resolve matters, and was trying to ensure issues did not happen again or too soon.
The landlord lacked a sufficiently proactive, resolution and customer focused approach, particularly given the resident’s stated mental health issues. This will have led her to lack confidence that it was bringing a lasting resolution to the front door issues. It will also have made her feel unheard. This is not satisfactory and leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the front door.
The resident’s account suggests issues with the front door are largely resolved but she still has some concerns. We therefore order the landlord to review her concerns along with the brickwork issue and set out its position on these to her. We also order it to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused by its handling about the front door.

The resident’s reports about increased heating costs due to the door issues

The resident raised concerns that the door issues made her property cold, and the landlord noted in its stage 2 acknowledgment and response that she sought compensation for heat loss. However, it did not address heat loss compensation at all in its responses. The evidence shows it intended to discuss compensation with the resident after the stage 2, however it is also not evident what the outcome to this was, and the resident complains she was not compensated.
The landlord’s compensation policy gives it scope to consider financial loss, and to either make a £25 goodwill payment or ask a customer to provide proof of incurred costs. It therefore should have shown it considered the issue in line with its policy and set out its position. This would have been appropriate given a November 2023 inspection noted that the front door let in draughts. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about increased heating costs.
The Ombudsman cannot say if the resident incurred more heating costs than she would have, but we order the landlord to pay her £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of response to this issue in its complaint responses. We also recommend it to invite the resident to provide evidence of her energy usage, consider if her heating energy usage was more than other periods or estimated in the property’s energy performance certificate, and consider if any more compensation may be applicable.

The resident’s reports about subsidence

The evidence shows that an operative attended the property about the front door in September 2022, before the landlord merged with the resident’s previous landlord in December 2022. They reported that someone, such as a structural engineer, should investigate large cracks around the door frame as this was possible subsidence. It is not evident this was followed up.
The landlord then attended in October 2023 about the door again and after cracks in the property were referred to its insurance team, a building consultant inspected in November 2023. Their report concluded that there was no subsidence and it was thermal and wear and tear related cracking, which the resident was told.
The September 2022 report not seeming to have been followed up is slightly concerning, but this was out of the landlord’s control given it was not the landlord at the time. In the complaint timeframe, the landlord noted and investigated issues with cracking in a reasonably appropriate and timely manner. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to make decisions about whether there is subsidence, but the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate subsidence by someone who seems suitably qualified. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about subsidence.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint was delayed. The resident raised multiple dissatisfaction in mid June 2023 which could have taken to be complaints. She then reported a further missed callback on 3 July 2023 and said she intended to contact the Ombudsman, after which its 13 July 2023 acknowledgement was 2 working days before a stage 1 response was due.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was also likely delayed. It has indicated that it responded at stage 1 on 27 July 2023. However, its stage 1 response is undated, a 26 July 2023 letter extended the deadline to 3 August 2023, and it had some discussions in late August 2023 about the £85 offered at stage 1. It is unclear why it would have done so if it responded in July 2023.
The resident subsequently reported that she had not received a response in September and October 2023. This indicates that the landlord had not provided the stage 1 response at this point, and it is not evident that it took appropriate opportunity to re-send the response if it had.
The landlord acknowledged a delay in its stage 2 response, but it did not satisfactorily acknowledge that its stage 1 handling involved delays, missed opportunities to provide a stage 1 response, and the resident going to time and trouble chasing a complaint response. It does not show it satisfactorily considered the November 2023 reports and established that its intended actions addressed the issues in the reports and the resident’s concerns. It also did not, as noted above, address heat loss compensation in its stage 2 response.
The complaint handling will have further undermined the resident’s confidence and led her to feel unsupported and unheard. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay a further amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidelines, to recognise the further distress and inconvenience that the resident will have been caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the front door.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about increased heating costs due to the door issues.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about subsidence.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks, apologise to the resident for the issues identified with its handling.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £350 compensation. This comprises £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports about the front door, £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the request for heat loss compensation, and £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This replaces the £115 it offered.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, inspect the new front door and:
1. consider current issues the resident has with the door.
2. consider if the current door and frame have sufficient support, and if any previously removed brickwork needs to be reinstated, given the November 2023 reports that the door and frame being fixed to a timber support rather than brickwork caused issues.
3. write to the resident with the outcome and any actions it is taking with the timeframe.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders no later than 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss recording her vulnerabilities and any reasonable adjustments it can make.
The landlord is recommended to invite the resident to provide evidence of her energy usage, consider if her heating energy usage was more than other periods or estimated in the property’s energy performance certificate, and consider if any more compensation may be applicable.
The landlord is recommended to inspect the new rear door, consider current issues the resident has with the door, and write to the resident with the outcome and any actions it is taking with the timeframe.
The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling and:
1. ensure that it responds to complaints in accordance with its complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code.
2. ensure that, in its responses, it sufficiently considers and addresses issues identified in reports it receives.