From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southern Housing (202421109)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421109

Southern Housing

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began in 1991. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which she occupies with her husband. She said they both developed breathing problems and other health conditions while living there. The landlord became aware of these during the complaint.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property in September 2022. She followed up with the landlord in June 2023. She said that her husband’s clothes had been damaged, and her health had suffered because of the damp and mould. She requested that the landlord treat her bedroom and move her to a new property. In response, the landlord asked her to send photographs. It told her to contact the local authority about a move or apply for a mutual exchange. It also told her that she would need to claim for the damaged clothes through her contents insurance.
  3. On 23 October 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said the landlord had not dealt with the damp and mould, and the situation had worsened. She also said that 2 recent inspections showed unacceptable levels of mould in the property. She explained that this affected their health and damaged their belongings. She asked for repairs to resolve the damp and mould and compensation for the damage, distress and inconvenience.
  4. On 28 February 2024 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
    1. It inspected the property on 12 December 2023 and had now completed the recommended work.
    2. It acknowledged that it should have picked up these works sooner during previous visits.
    3. It would reinstall the data loggers and arrange regular check-ups.
    4. It could not compensate her for damage that should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance.
    5. It would offer £545 compensation, made up of:
      1. £350 for the impact, inconvenience and time and trouble caused.
      2. £60 for failure to carry out repairs on time.
      3. £15 for having to chase for updates.
      4. £15 for failure to follow the process in raising repairs.
      5. £15 for repeat visits.
      6. £15 for communication failures.
      7. £25 for failure to respond to the complaint within its timescales.
      8. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  5. On 24 April 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She was unhappy with the compensation and the landlord’s lack of action. She wanted the necessary repairs done promptly. She continued to raise concerns about the damp and mould between May and June 2024. On 10 July 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found no mould but noticed ‘serious’ problems with ventilation and recommended a series of works. The landlord inspected the property on 18 October 2024 and found that not all the recommended works had been completed.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 6 January 2025. In summary, it said:
    1. It apologised for its poor complaint handling.
    2. It delivered data loggers on 11 March 2024 and collected them on 9 April 2024, which showed increased humidity.
    3. It inspected the property on 10 July 2024 and found no mould, but recommended upgrading the bathroom extractor fan, which its contractor then completed.
    4. In October 2024 it post inspected the property and found no mould. However, it recognised some works were not done, and another visit was needed to complete these.
    5. It would update the resident on what work was outstanding within 3 to 5 working days.
    6. It would offer further compensation of £175, made up of £100 for poor complaint handling and £75 for delays in works to resolve the damp and mould.
  7. In her referral to this Service, the resident said she was still waiting for work to be done. She wanted the landlord to either move her or provide more compensation to recognise the duration and impact of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that this situation has been ongoing for a number of years. However, given the passage of time and the evidence available, it would be fair and reasonable for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of reports from September 2022 up to the landlord’s January 2025 final response and any commitments it made.
  2. During the complaints process, the resident advised the landlord that its handling of these matters affected the health of the household. In this case, we are unable to consider causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being as this would be better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused to the household.
  3. We recognise that the resident felt the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. However, in this case, we are unable to determine the cause or extent of damage to the resident’s possessions. This would be better suited to an insurance claim or a court.
  4. As an outcome of her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to move her. We cannot determine whether the landlord should rehouse someone. However, we have considered how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould and whether it acted fairly in all the circumstances.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord accepts failings, we consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In doing so, we assess whether the landlord’s actions aligned with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s September 2022 report of damp and mould on 30 October 2022. It said it would send a surveyor to inspect. However, there is no evidence that this inspection happened. The landlord failed to follow its damp and mould procedure, which says that an inspection should be undertaken within 10 working days. This caused distress to the resident, who felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 15 June 2023. She said the damp and mould had damaged her husband’s clothes and asked the landlord to treat her bedroom. The landlord responded quickly and asked her to provide photographs. However, it did not follow up with any action.
  4. On 27 June 2023 the resident reported that her health was suffering because of damp and mould. This was an opportunity for the landlord to gather details of the household’s health issues and assess how the situation was affecting them. This is part of its damp and mould procedure. However, it did not do this. Instead, it repeated its request for photographs. This was unhelpful.
  5. The resident chased again. On 17 July 2023 the landlord told the resident it had raised a task for its surveyor to inspect the property and that she would need to wait up to 28 days for a response. This was contrary to its procedure and showed that the landlord had not properly prioritised the risk or the effect this situation was having on the household. This also demonstrated that it had not properly considered the historical context of repeated mould issues.
  6. Even then, the landlord failed to arrange this inspection within the 28-day timescale. This caused time and trouble for the resident, who chased the landlord for a response on 21 October 2023. She also raised the matter directly with its chief executive. However, the landlord again did not respond within a reasonable timescale. Its records show it was only after the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 13 November 2023 that it acted.
  7. The landlord spoke with the resident the next day. It said it would carry out a full damp and mould survey on 27 November 2023 and arrange for any identified works to be completed within 6 weeks. This was the first evidence of an inspection or any action by the landlord following the resident’s report of damp and mould in September 2022, 14 months previously. While there is evidence that it visited the property on this date and it agreed to a number of works, there is no record of the actual survey. This demonstrates issues with the landlord’s record-keeping. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repair processes are not operating effectively.
  8. However, there is evidence that it installed data loggers at this visit, which it collected on 12 December 2023. It told the resident that the lounge did not show any adverse levels of moisture but that the bedroom did, which might have worsened the mould growth. It recommended upgrading the extractor fan, increasing the gap at the bottom of the bedroom door and removing the passive vent in the bedroom. It appeared these works were completed broadly within the landlord’s promised 6-week timescale. This was fair.
  9. Nevertheless, at the end of January 2024 the resident reported that the damp and mould had worsened. Again, the landlord failed to respond to this within a reasonable timescale. This was despite it telling the resident in December 2023 that it would monitor the bedroom again in January and February 2024. However, there is no evidence that this happened. Its failure to do so caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who expected the landlord to monitor the situation and keep her updated.
  10. The landlord installed data loggers again on 11 March 2024. There is no evidence that it took any meaningful action after this. This led to the resident continuing to report the same issues and regularly chasing for updates. The landlord did not follow its own procedure, which says that if the issue has not been resolved after 6 weeks, the matter should be escalated and the action plan reviewed. There is no evidence that the landlord did this or that it assessed whether the previous repairs had been effective. This was particularly important given that the data loggers recorded increased humidity.
  11. The landlord inspected the property again in July 2024. Although there was no mould present, it noted a lack of ventilation throughout the property. It also noted that a ‘hefty number of corrections’ were needed to prevent mould returning in the winter months. These works included blocking airbricks to the bedroom, lounge and kitchen and electrical works to improve ventilation. The landlord should have identified these works sooner.
  12. The landlord’s contractor completed the recommended electrical work on 8 October 2024, nearly 3 months after the landlord’s July 2024 inspection. This was an unreasonable delay, especially considering the household’s situation. There was no evidence that the landlord made an appointment with the resident for as ‘soon as possible’, as required by its own repair policy. As a result, the resident continued to feel anxious because the problems had not been resolved.
  13. On 18 October 2024 the landlord carried out a follow-up inspection and discovered that its contractor had not completed all the recommended work. The landlord also identified additional works, including the need for a mould wash on the window casements and reveals, as well as mould fogging for the entire property. However, it is unclear if or when this extra work happened. The resident told us in January 2025 that she was still awaiting fogging and mould treatment.
  14. The landlord’s formal responses acknowledged and apologised for most of its failings. It also offered £570 compensation to put things right. This was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards of up to £600 in cases where failures have adversely affected the resident. However, the landlord’s final response said it would update the resident within the next 3 to 5 working days about the outstanding work. However, there is no evidence that this happened. This likely increased the resident’s frustration and made her feel the landlord was not treating the matter seriously.
  15. Its records suggest that it did not block the airbricks until May 2025. This considerable delay showed a clear lack of urgency, even though the landlord had already acknowledged that the damp and mould would likely become a problem in the winter months. It also showed that the landlord failed to consider the impact on the household, particularly in light of the reported health concerns.
  16. This amounts to maladministration, and we have ordered further compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 should be considered where there have been failures that have adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property to determine if any further work is needed.
  17. Throughout the complaint, the resident explained that the damp and mould had damaged household belongings. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct her to claim through her own contents insurance. However, since the resident believed the damage resulted from the landlord’s inaction, it should have also explained how she could make a claim through its liability insurance. We have made an order below requiring the landlord to provide this information.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord handled the complaint poorly. It took around 4 months to respond at stage 1. This far exceeded its own complaints policy, which says it aims to respond within 10 working days. It also failed to explain the delay or agree on a new response date as required by its policy. While its stage 1 response offered £75 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling, there was no explanation for the delay, nor any evidence of learning from this.
  2. There was also a considerable delay at stage 2. The landlord issued its final response nearly 9 months after the resident’s escalation request. This was far beyond the 20-working days set out in its policy. On this occasion, the landlord did apologise, explained the delay and offered £100 compensation. However, these repeated delays showed it had not learned from earlier mistakes. The entire complaints process took the resident over 12 months to complete. This likely damaged trust in the landlord-tenant relationship and made the resident feel like the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  3. Overall, we consider that the compensation offered does not fully reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. Especially given the nature of the complaint and her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
  4. This amounts to service failure, and we have awarded a further £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards of up to £100 where there is a loss of confidence and the landlord has made an offer of compensation that does not quite reflect the level of detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,020 comprised of:
      1. £720 as offered across its formal complaint responses if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould
      3. A further £50 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the property to identify if any further repairs are required due to the damp and mould. If works are needed, it must arrange an action plan with proposed timescales for resolution. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident and this Service.
    4. Provide details in writing on how the resident can submit a claim through its liability insurance for the damage to her possessions.