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

Southern Housing (202330144)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330144

Southern Housing

12 March 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. Handling of the resident’s direct debit payments.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a flat and the landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident pays rent and service charges to the landlord. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 7 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident of a year-end deficit in his service charge payments for the accounting year April 2021 to March 2022. The resident agreed to pay an additional £50 per month by direct debit on top of his service charges.
  3. On 23 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
    1. on 3 occasions, the landlord had taken £200 more by direct debit than he had agreed
    2. a member of the landlord’s staff had misgendered him on 2 occasions
    3. he considered the landlord’s communication slow
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2023 and 1 November 2023. It sent its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023. It apologised for the identified failings, assured him it would arrange additional training, and offered £100 compensation.
  5. On or around the 7 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He considered the compensation should have been £600 and he should not have to pay the remaining service charge balance.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 November 2023. It said:
    1. it apologised for the direct debit error
    2. its staff member had calculated the agreed amount but its systems did not correctly activate the request
    3. it had reported the issue to its IT team and held a meeting with its staff to ensure all were aware of the correct procedures
    4. it invited the resident to provide it with details of bank charges he had incurred
    5. its staff member had expressed their apology for unintentionally referring to the resident as female and any offense the mistake had caused
    6. it was prepared to consider the resident’s reports of lapses in its communication if he raised them via its ‘myaccount’ system
    7. it had considered the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and increased its offer of compensation to £200.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said the landlord should refund the additional sums taken and award higher compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the resident’s complaint he considers he should not have had to pay for the remaining balance of service charges. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. This falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  2. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this matter, he may wish to seek independent legal advice and discuss it further with the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE). This matter will not form part of our investigation.

Handling of the resident’s direct debit payments

  1. The landlord’s service charges and rents document provides guidance when a resident’s annual service charges increase. It states this happens when the cost of providing services was higher than expected. This may include costs for unexpected work, such as an emergency.
  2. In this case, the evidence indicates the resident accepted additional costs due to a fire at the property. It was therefore consistent with its service charge documents for the landlord to include the additional charge.
  3. The landlord does not dispute that it agreed a revised payment plan with the resident. It acknowledged that this would be an additional £50 per month and included as part of the resident’s service charge direct debit payment.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord also accepted that an error with its IT system took an incorrect payment of £250 for 3 months from August 2023.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response offered the resident an apology for the IT error. It also investigated telephone recordings regarding a member of staff misgendering the resident during conversations. It apologised for any upset caused and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the identified failings.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and the time taken to correct the error. He had experienced higher direct debits for 3 months and sought reassurance this would not happen again.
  7. It was not reasonable for the landlord to incorrectly deduct the additional sum of £200 on 3 occasions. It is also unclear how the landlord monitored its arranged payment plan. Given the recurring error, it did not demonstrate it had an effective process in place.
  8. That said, it is unclear how exactly the landlord failed to meet the resident’s communication expectations. The landlord’s arrears management reports show it identified an incorrect payment on 23 October 2023 and emailed the resident to offer the money back. This was reasonable and the same day as the resident’s complaint.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 response invited the resident to provide details of his communication concerns via its ‘myaccount’ online system. It explained the responsible managers would investigate his concerns. This demonstrated its willingness to consider his concerns. We have seen no evidence that the resident acted on this offer.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response was empathetic and apologetic. It demonstrated a thorough investigation and explained learning that it had taken from his complaint. It apologised that its failures may have caused him distress and inconvenience. It informed him of changes made to its direct debit system to prevent similar happening again. It also referred to training it would provide to its staff. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord accepted the identified failings and its steps to put things right.
  11. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  12. The landlord showed it accepted its service fell short. It recognised its errors had affected the resident on 3 occasions and requested evidence of any bank charges incurred. This demonstrated its efforts to put him back to the position he was before its error. This was fair and a reasonable offer to make.
  13. Furthermore, it apologised, identified learning, and increased its offer of compensation to £200. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. We may have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledged complaints within 5 working days and responds at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. We are satisfied that this policy met the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022.
  2. Having complained on 23 October 2023 the resident should have received an acknowledgement by 30 October 2023 and a stage 1 response by 6 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2023, 1 working day late.
  3. The Code states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the identified failings and offered compensation. This was appropriate. However, it did not answer the resident’s point that he should not have to pay the rest of his service charges due to the landlord’s errors.
  5. While the landlord discussed this matter directly with the resident, it should have included this point within its response. Its failure to demonstrate its formal response was not consistent with the Code.
  6. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation on 7 November 2023. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider this his escalation request. It acknowledged this the same day via telephone.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 November 2023. This was appropriate and within its 20 working day response time.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord reviewed our remedies guidance and revisited its offer of compensation. Its decision to increase its offer to £200 demonstrated the landlord taking reasonable steps to put things right.
  9. While the landlord’s stage 2 offer did not explain how it allocated the additional £100 compensation between the resident’s complaint points, we consider the total sum fair and consistent with our remedies guidance.
  10. We have identified minor failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it apologised and revised its offer of compensation. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s direct debit payments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffer the resident the £200 compensation offered at stage 2 of its ICP, if not already paid.