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

Southern Housing (202325332)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325332

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has lived in the 4-bedoomed flat with his family since 2010. The building is owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The resident’s son brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as his representative. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
  3. The resident reported a leak under the sink on 23 March 2023. The landlord’s records do not confirm if the leak was attended to. The resident reported a leak on 13 April 2023 and a contractor attended on 2 May 2023 when the repair was recorded as completed. On 9 May 2023 the resident reported the leak as uncontainable. A contractor attended on 12 May 2023, replaced a leaking sink mixer and 2 connector pipes. After the contractor left the property, the resident reported a further leak. A contractor attended on 15 May 2023 when parts were ordered.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2023. He was unhappy with:
    1. the ongoing leak in the property and the number of appointments
    2. the quality of the replacement taps
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 November 2023. In summary it said:
    1. the leak was reported on 23 March 2023 and repairs continued through to 5 October 2023
    2. its contractors advised 4 appointments had been cancelled across March, September and June 2023
    3. it had identified ownership issues with the repairs which had caused repeated visits and delays
    4. it had not regularly reviewed the follow up of the repairs
    5. a change in the complaint case handler and a new process had resulted in the resident not receiving updates
    6. it was sorry for the time taken to resolve the issues and the inconvenience caused
    7. it upheld the complaint and offered £505 compensation in acknowledgement of the delays in repairs, missed appointments and repeat visits, complaint handling, miscommunication, decoration costs and inconvenience caused
  6. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 8 November 2023. He remained dissatisfied with:
    1. the accuracy of the landlord’s response, particularly the dates where it said access had been denied
    2. the compensation offer
  7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 13 December 2023. In summary it said:
    1. it had reviewed all available records to check the accuracy of information provided in its initial response, and confirmed it had provided incorrect information
    2. it could not find 20 missed appointments as quoted by the resident, but confirmed there had been 1 missed and 2 failed appointments
    3. there was 1 instance when a repair could not be completed as the wrong part had been ordered, and a further instance when a contractor could not complete a repair as it was not authorised to do so
    4. it upheld the complaint and increased the compensation offer to £640 in acknowledgement of the complaint handling, delays in repairs, failed and missed appointments, service failures, decoration allowance and the inconvenience caused
  8. The resident referred his complaint to us on 14 December 2023. He confirmed the leak had been rectified and all the associated remedial work had been completed, but he remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident asked for:
    1. additional compensation
    2. a letter of apology from the Head of the landlord

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak in the property and the associated repairs

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Tenancy Agreement, the landlord’s Repair Policy states it must maintain any installation provided for supplying water and sanitation. It states:
    1. it will make safe an emergency within 6 hours of the report being made
    2. it will arrange non-emergency appointments for as soon as possible
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
    1. it may make discretionary compensation payments to recognise the inconvenience or loss caused by a service failure (£50 to £700+)
    2. service failures should be paid for complaint handling (£15 or £50)
    3. it will pay compensation if it (or its contractor) fails to keep an appointment and does not notify the resident the day before the appointment (£20 per appointment)
    4. it will pay compensation if it has visited previously to establish a fault, and parts are required, and it returns but fails to undertake the necessary work
    5. it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings or annual leave
  3. The resident reported a leak under the sink on 23 March 2023. The landlord’s records show the initial appointment for 5 April 2023 was cancelled on 27 March 2023 due to the operative being unavailable. There is no evidence to confirm if this reported leak was attended to, or of any communication to the resident. This was not appropriate as the landlord has failed to demonstrate it fulfilled its repair obligations and failed to keep the resident updated.
  4. The landlord’s records show a repair was raised on 13 April 2023 for a leak under the sink, A contractor attended on 2 May 2023 and the records state the repair was completed, but no further information has been provided in relation to the leak. Due to a lack of adequate records, we are unable to determine if the landlord met its repair obligations in respect of the leak. This is a failure by the landlord.
  5. After another report from the resident on 12 May 2023, a contractor attended to a leak as an emergency repair. This was in line with policy. The records confirm a follow-on appointment was made for 16 May 2023 for a new part to be fitted. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to providing a resolution, however the contractor noted it could not contact the resident by phone or by intercom and so the repair was recorded as no access.
  6. On 16 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord advising the leak was uncontainable. A contractor attended the same day as an emergency. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The contractor found the descaler under the sink was connected to the boiler and so referred this back to the landlord as it was not authorised to complete the repair. This was reasonable. On 17 May 2023, a different contractor attended, isolated the cold-water supply, and replaced the isolation valve under the sink.
  7. On 22 May 2023 the resident reported a further leak, and a contractor attended the same day. The contractor noted the scale reducer was leaking and referred this back to the landlord so a different contractor to attend. An appointment was made for the following day when it was confirmed a part was needed to repair the leaking joint. The wrong parts were ordered, and the appointment was rescheduled from 1 June to 6 June 2023 when it was completed. The evidence confirms the resident was informed of the change in the appointment. This was reasonable.
  8. On 7 June 2023 the resident told the landlord the new scale reducer was leaking. A contractor attended the following day and confirmed the scale reducer needed to be replaced with a copper cylinder, and an inline fitter fitted. The resident was informed parts were needed, and an appointment was made for 13 June 2023 when the repair was completed. This was reasonable.
  9. No further repairs were reported until 1 September 2023 when the resident reported a leak from the kitchen sink. The contractor’s records stated this was a no access attempt and was followed by further unsuccessful attempts on 4 and 14 September 2023. On 19 September 2023 the contractor attended and tightened the connector seal around the washing machine outlet. While a repair was raised to change the taps like for like, the landlord noted the taps installed were in full working order and upgrades did not fall under its responsibility.
  10. During the above, the resident submitted a complaint on 12 May 2023. He referred to the ongoing leak, the alleged multiple missed appointments, an emergency call out, and the quality of the replacement kitchen taps. In its stage 1 response on 8 November 2023 the landlord said the contractors had advised 3 appointments had been cancelled in March 2023 and September 2023, and 1 was cancelled in June 2023. It acknowledged ownership issues regarding the repairs had caused repeated visits and delays in the matter being resolved. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence the landlord communicated this to the resident at the time. It was unreasonable he was only told this as a part of a complaint response and not as the leak was ongoing.
  11. The landlord recognised it had not reviewed the repairs regularly and that a newly implemented process had resulted in a lack of updates to the resident. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues and the inconvenience caused. The landlord referred to its Compensation Policy and provided a matrix to demonstrate how it reached the offer of £430 for the delays and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s compensation offer was appropriate, but it failed to identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failings. This was unreasonable.
  12. The resident escalated the complaint as he was not satisfied with the accuracy of the landlord’s response, or the compensation offer. In its final complaint response on 13 December 2023, the landlord confirmed it had provided incorrect information in its initial response. It confirmed it had reviewed the records and did not identify the 20 missed appointments quoted by the resident therefore it could not offer the compensation requested. It provided an update on the repairs which confirmed 1 missed and 2 failed appointments.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the time taken to resolve the leak, and that it had failed to follow its repair process. It recognised this had led to repeated visits and the need for the resident to chase updates. In acknowledgement of the service failures and the inconvenience caused, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £490. This was appropriate as it was in line with its Compensation Policy. Furthermore, it was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident, but where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right while addressing the detriment to the resident.
  14. However, despite the landlord recognising the service failures, it did not confirm any learning to prevent a recurrence of these. And so, while no further compensation has been ordered, a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5–working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10–working days and stage 2 complaints within 20–working days of the acknowledgement date. If additional time is needed at either stage of the process, the landlord will inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
  3. When the resident submitted his complaint on 15 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged it on 19 May 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy and the Code.
  4. On 5 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident advising him of an extension to the complaint response. It said it was unable to progress with the investigation as it had not received the information from the contractor. It confirmed it had chased the contractor and escalated the case due to the lack of response. The landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed it would respond within the next 10–working days (19 June 2023). This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy and the Code. However, on 23, 26 and 29 June 2023, the resident spent time and effort asking the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have kept the resident updated.
  5. On 3 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident it had still not received all the information needed from the contractor. It confirmed it had prompted the contractor and was expecting a response the following week. It told the resident it would respond within the next 10–working days (17 July 2023). This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Code.
  6. The landlord did not provide a response by the date given and throughout July to November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions asking for updatest. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 November 2023, 122 days after it was received. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or Code. Furthermore, there was repeated communication failures by the landlord who did not provide updates to the resident. This was unreasonable.
  7. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 8 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 15 November 2023 and provided its final complaint response on 13 December 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy.
  8. The landlord demonstrated a thorough review which addressed the concerns raised by the resident. It acknowledged the complaint handling failures and offered £150 compensation. This was appropriate as it was in line with its Compensation Policy. Furthermore, the offer was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident, and where the landlord has attempted to put things right. However, the landlord did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the complaint handling failures, therefore while no additional compensation has been ordered, a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
    2. paid the resident a total of £640 as per the final complaint response, which is made up of the following:
      1. £490 for the failures associated with the leak and the inconvenience to the resident
      2. £150 for the complaint handling failures 
      3. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with:
    1. a clear explanation of how it intends to learn from this case and improve future handling of leaks
    2. a review of the complaint handling failures in this case which should identify the cause of the delays and what changes, if any, are needed to ensure compliance with its complaint response targets in future