Southern Housing — case 202420222

Decision Case ID 202420222 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southern Housing Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Date 27 January 2026 Background The property is a 3 bedroom house, and the resident pays services charges for services provided by the landlord. The resident made enquiries about the service charge she paid for communal electricity and lighting. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.

We also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident about its response to her service charge enquiries, which, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident about its handling of the associated complaint which, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Service charge enquiries The landlord did not respond to the resident’s service charge enquiries within a reasonable timeframe, which it acknowledged and for which it offered adequate compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident. During the complaints process, it provided a reasonable explanation for the communal electricity and lighting charge and confirmed that it had correctly applied this category to recover the energy costs associated with operating the water pump station.

Complaint handling The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued its stage 2 response within its published timeframe. However, it extended the timeframe to issue its stage 1 response on 3 occasions, which it communicated to the resident. It acknowledged this delayed issuing its complaint response and offered compensation to the resident, which reflected the impact on her. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord pays £90 compensation offered during its process to the resident if she chooses to accept it. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 April 2024 The resident made a complaint to the landlord about lack of response to her service charge enquiries within a reasonable timeframe.

The resident asked the landlord to explain why she paid for lighting in areas without lights. 25 April 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. 10 May 2024 The landlord informed the resident it needed longer to issue its stage 1 response. It said it would respond by 24 May 2024. 24 May 2024 The landlord explained it was waiting for information would issue its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. 10 June 2024 The landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting information from its energy supplier to finalise its complaint response.

It advised that it would issue its stage 1 response on 24 June 2024 and apologised for the delays. It also confirmed that it would offer compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by the delays. 24 June 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in responding to the resident’s service charge enquiries and her complaint. It provided a detailed explanation for the communal electricity and light charge and confirmed it found no error in the resident’s account being charged for this.

It offered to pay £90 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. Its offer was equivalent to: £25 for failure to respond within timescale. £15 for the resident having to repeatedly chase a response. £50 for its complaint handling failing. 24 June 2024 The resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her concerns that the landlord had used incorrect wording when describing the communal electricity service charge. She also repeated that she had not received the services for communal lighting or a lift, despite the landlord charging for them.

1 July 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident stage 2 complaint. 23 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response and confirmed that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. It reiterated its reasons for applying the communal electricity and lighting charge. It also provided an explanation for the wording used on the resident’s rent account and confirmed that it had applied the correct code and heading. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought the complaint to us on 28 August 2024.

She said the landlord charged her for services she said she did not receive. As a resolution to her complaint, she sought for the landlord to refund the service charge for these services and make changes to the rent summary to accurately reflect the services provided. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charges enquiries Finding Reasonable redress The resident raised concerns about the communal electricity and lighting charge and sought for the landlord to refund those charges, which she said it had incorrectly applied. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern the reasonableness or the level of service charge, the amount of service charge increase or whether due to that any refund of charges is required.

This would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal. However, we may consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries. In its stage 1 response, the landlord recognised that it had failed to respond to the resident’s queries about her service charges within a reasonable timeframe. The resident explained that she contacted the landlord several times over a period of 9 weeks and it had not adequately responded to her enquiries. While it was reasonable for the landlord to recognise its failings and apologise to the resident, the delays in responding to her enquiries caused her inconvenience as she had to raise the issue as a complaint.

In its complaint responses, the landlord provided a detailed and reasonable explanation for the communal electricity and lighting charge on the resident’s account. The evidence shows that in May 2024, it investigated the matters and established the reasons for the charge. It clarified that, although the development did not have communal lighting or a lift, there was a water pumping station on site that required electricity to operate. It explained that the communal electricity and lighting charge was to recover the cost of supplying energy to communal areas and equipment.

It also confirmed that the charge applied to the resident related solely to the water pumping station and it had correctly applied it. In its stage 2 response, the landlord adequately explained that the communal electricity and lighting charge had been correctly applied under the appropriate code and heading. It advised that this heading was a standard category used to record energy costs that benefit residents. It also said that there was no need to amend the heading, as it had correctly applied the category.

This was a reasonable explanation by the landlord, as it clearly established that the energy used to power the water pumping station fell within the scope of communal electricity. The landlord offered the resident £40 in compensation, consisting of £25 for its delay in responding to her enquiry and £15 for the inconvenience caused by her having to chase a reply. This offer aligned with the landlord’s compensation policy, which awards £15 for a service failure and allows discretionary payments where multiple failures occurred.

This level of compensation provides reasonable redress because it reflects the inconvenience the resident experienced. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.

If it needs longer to respond to a complaint it will inform the resident, explain the reasons for the delay and agree a new timeframe. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued its stage 2 response within its published timeframes, which was reasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord extended the timeframe for issuing its stage 1 response 3 times. It explained that the delays were due to awaiting information from a third party and were therefore outside its direct control.

We recognise that the landlord correctly communicated these delays to the resident and kept her informed throughout. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £50 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings, which was in line with its compensation policy for complaint handling failings. After reviewing the evidence, we determine that this level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress. This is because the landlord’s offer appropriately reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays identified.

The resident declined the landlord’s compensation offer, and the payment therefore was not made. We recommended that the landlord presents the offer to her again and arrange prompt payment if she decides to accept it. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) While delayed the landlord provided the resident with detailed yearly rent and service charge breakdowns in line with its obligations. Communication While the landlord extended the timeframe to issue its stage 1 response beyond its complaint policy timeframe, it kept the resident informed and appropriately explain the reasons for the delays.