Southern Housing (202445587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445587

Southern Housing

24 July 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 repairs at the resident’s property, namely:
1. A leak in the bathroom.
2. A faulty front door.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house. She has lived there since May 2015 with her 2 children.
On 22 April 2024 the resident reported issues with her front door. The landlord attempted a repair on 14 May 2024 and 22 June 2024. It recorded a new front door was needed. The resident also reported a leak to the bathroom toilet on 27 June 2024. The landlord attended the leak within 24 hours and noted follow on works would be required.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 July 2024. She said she was unhappy with the delays to the repairs she had reported.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays and lack of updates. It set out a plan of action to resolve the outstanding repairs and offered the resident £195 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2024 and said the repairs had still not been completed. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 December 2024. It apologised for the further delays and committed to completing the repairs. The landlord offered the resident a further £330 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The resident first reported issues with her front door on 22 April 2024. She told the landlord the door kept dropping and there was a gap between the door and the frame. The landlord attended the property on 15 May 2024 and noted the door was warped and it would need 2 operatives to adjust it.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the outside doors of the property. Non-emergency repairs will be attended as soon as possible, at a time that suits the resident.
An operative for the landlord returned to the property on 22 June 2024. The landlord’s notes indicate its operative was expecting to replace the door and noted a new door had not been ordered.
The landlord’s inability to fix the problem at this visit shows there was poor management of the repair and unnecessary inconvenience caused to the resident by this.
The resident reported a leak to her bathroom toilet on 27 June 2024. The landlord attended the property approximately 8 hours later.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing and maintaining installations for the supply of water and sanitation, and the outside doors of the property. The policy also sets out emergency repairs will be attended within 6 hours.
It is reasonable to assume the resident’s reports met the criteria for an emergency repair, and as such the landlord’s response time was outside of its policy timescale. The landlord stopped the leak and noted further repairs to the toilet would be needed. A return appointment was arranged for the following month. There is no evidence provided which shows the appointment was agreed with the resident in line with its policy.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 July 2024. She said:
1. The repair to the toilet had been scheduled without her knowledge and she wanted it to be completed sooner.
2. The front door had not been replaced, and she had received no updates on when this was going to happen.
The landlord attended the property on 11 July 2024 in regard to the front door. Its operative believed they were there to fix the door, but upon arrival, agreed the door needed to be replaced. The operative informed the resident she would receive a call from the landlord. The failure of the operative to be able to fix the issue was a repetition of the errors in management of the repair that had occurred earlier in the process.
On 12 July 2024 the resident made the landlord aware that her son had autism and only liked to use the toilet in the bathroom, and not the second toilet in the property. The evidence shows the landlord tried to bring the appointment forward for repairs to the bathroom but was unable to do so. The repair to the toilet was completed on 7 August 2024. The landlord noted a further visit was required to address the damage caused by the leak, such as redecoration.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays and said:
1. The reason the toilet repair appointment had originally been booked in advance was because there was a second toilet at the property. Upon being informed the repair was needed more urgently, it tried to bring the appointment forward, but it was unable to do so.
2. The delays to replacing the front door were unnecessary and aggravated by a lack of communication from its contractor.
3. An appointment for both repairs would be made before 22 August 2024.
4. It offered the resident a total of £195 for its failings across both repairs.
The evidence shows the stage 1 response was the first contact the resident had about the door repair since the landlord’s visit on 11 July 2024, despite the landlord stating the resident would be called about the scheduling of the repair at the material time. The failure to take action as promised in the 4 weeks prior to the stage 1 response was unreasonable.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 19, 27, 29 and 30 August 2024. The landlord did not respond with a date for the outstanding repairs. On 3 September 2024 she escalated her complaint.
The evidence shows during this period, the landlord’s complaints team made proactive efforts to regularly chase the repair appointments on behalf on the resident with the relevant internal departments responsible for carrying out the required works.
The landlord’s internal emails dated September and October 2024 recorded a survey was needed to establish the extent of the repairs. The landlord made 2 appointments to visit the resident in October 2024. It failed to attend on both occasions and failed to let the resident know it could not attend the appointments.
The evidence shows the period between the stage 1 response and this point that the landlord was unable to deliver the commitments set out in its stage 1 response. Poor internal co-ordination and effective management of the issues caused delays and left the issues unresolved for the resident.
The landlord completed the survey in November 2024. The exact date is unclear from the documents provided. The survey report noted:
1. Redecoration work was required following the leak.
2. A specialist was required to inspect the door to determine whether a replacement was needed.
On 30 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the further delays that been caused and said:
1. The remedial repairs following the leak remained outstanding. It would complete the repairs on 22 January 2025.
2. It was disappointed that despite multiple recommendations for the door to be replaced, the work had not been completed. It had requested a specialist to inspect the front door, and it was waiting for confirmation of an appointment date.
3. The appointments it missed added to the delays experienced by the resident.
4. It had fallen short of the standards she could expect.
5. It increased its compensation offer to £525 across both repairs.
The landlord attended the property on 22 and 23 January 2025 and completed the outstanding repairs following the leak. The resident continued to report issues with the front door to the landlord in April and May 2025. The front door was replaced on 29 May 2025.
As part of our investigation the landlord told us it previously used a contractor to conduct repairs on its behalf. It said the contract had ended on 30 September 2024 and the repair service was brought in house to provide a better service for its residents. The landlord acknowledged there was some disruption caused during this transition with appointments that had been previously booked with its contractor. While this goes some way to explain the delays experienced by the resident, and the landlord’s request for a further survey, it was still obligated to fulfil its repair responsibilities in line with the timescales and service standards set out in its own policy.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to attend the leak within its timescales for an emergency repair. While no timescales are given in the policy for non-emergency repairs, such as the damage caused by the leak, the resident could have reasonably expected them to be completed within 4 weeks.
The evidence also shows the landlord tried to bring the toilet repair forward to accommodate the resident’s son’s needs. It was unsuccessful. The time taken to conduct the repair caused the resident added distress due to the vulnerabilities present in the household. It took over 5 months to complete the remedial repairs from its initial appointment in August 2024. This delay was unreasonable.
While we recognise door replacements can take longer than other repairs, the continuous cycle of unproductive appointments and poor internal communication increased delays. It was indicative of poor management of the repair issues. The landlord took 13 months to replace the door and this was unreasonable.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £525 compensation. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In addition, it did not reflect the following issues:
1. It failed to provide a timeframe within which the front door would be replaced.
2. It failed to provide the resident with updates with regards to the replacement of the front door.
3. The front door was not replaced until May 2025, 13 months after the initial report was made.
The failures in this case amount to service failure. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £150. This brings the total compensation for the repair issues to £675. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay £675 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s failures. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £525 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.