Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202409445)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409445

Southern Housing

30 October 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 defects, and damp and mould, and response to her request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident’s shared ownership lease began in 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom apartment. It was a new build at the time lease began.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord, in February 2024, about multiple elements of its new build services and defects handling. She expressed her unhappiness to have received its annual rent and service charge increase letter, and asked that her charges be frozen.
  3. During March and April 2024, the landlord explained to the resident why it had extended its stage 1 complaint timeframe, and why her rent and service charge concern would be responded to by its relevant team, separately from her complaint. It was not referred to in her complaint, but she reported separately that it had attended for leaks that had started to cause damp and mould.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 25 April 2024, responded to each of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged failings in its services, apologised for her time and trouble and offered £75 compensation. The following day it advised that it would arrange for an external surveyor to inspect the cause of the damp and mould.
  5. The resident’s complaint escalation, on 2 May 2024, asked for confirmation that the property defects were in hand and queried the landlord’s process. She asked it to reconsider its compensation and include issues with onsite security, a period of no heating and hot water, and the mis selling of her property . The landlord confirmed, later the same month, that it was awaiting the findings of the external surveyor’s inspection of the leak, which was causing damp and mould.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 31 May 2024, said that it was working through the defects schedule it had sent the resident. It explained its position and why it had not offered compensation for each of the matters raised, except for the damp and mould. It apologised for the impact of the damp and mould and increased its stage 1 compensation to £350.
  7. The resident expressed her unhappiness with the landlord’s response and raised fire safety concerns about her front door the following week. In September 2024 she asked whether she could accept its £350 compensation “but escalate the ongoing damp separately”.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint because she had since received her final defects report, which she said was inaccurate. She described issues that she was experiencing with her front door and her concern that it is not fire resistant. She said that, since her complaint, her damp wall had been replastered and further compensation had been paid for other matters, both of which she is happy with.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. No evidence has been seen that the resident has formally complained to the landlord about her fire door concerns or final defects report, both of which occurred after her complaint concluded in May 2024. Because of that, these issues have not been considered in this report. The resident could consider making a new complaint to the landlord about these issues. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint.
  2. The resident’s compensation request included her concern that the landlord had mis-sold her the property. This is a legal matter that would be more appropriately considered by the courts. Because of that, it has not been considered in this report. The resident could consider seeking legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s handling of defects, damp, and mould

  1. The resident complained about several matters, including the landlord’s defects handling, on 29 February 2024. She cited examples of issues that she said operatives had told her were defects but that the landlord had later decided were not. She said that reports made via its portal had been deleted without contact and that its communication was poor.
  2. The evidence seen shows the resident’s reports of intercom issues in May 2023, but is otherwise limited prior to her complaint. It shows her reports of separate internal and external leaks, from 13 March 2024, and her subsequent reports of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord’s responses over the following 2 months were generally timely, and it explained why it was extending its complaint response timeframe. However, following the inspection of the external leak, which was subsequently confirmed as the cause of the damp and mould, its first external surveyor failed to provide their findings. As it later accepted, the resident experienced delays and frustration while it arranged a second inspection, which was not completed until mid-May 2024.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 25 April 2024, addressed the resident’s defect reporting concerns, including the portal issues and the 2 examples she had cited. It explained its further intentions and that she would shortly receive a schedule of the outstanding defects (the defects liability period was due to end in early 2025). It apologised for her “inconvenience, time, and trouble”, and offered £75 compensation.
  5. The resident’s complaint escalation, a few days later, asked for confirmation of how defects were decided and that hers were in hand. She asked the landlord to reconsider the compensation and take into account further issues, such as that “one wall is brown, damp, and mouldy”, as a result of the external leak.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 31 May 2024, reiterated its previous defect explanations, stated its position with reference to the schedule the resident had received, and provided contact details if she needed to add to this. This addressed her defects concerns and was therefore reasonable. It acknowledged the impact of the damp and mould and increased its compensation to £350. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint of this scale and nature, and was paid in October 2024.
  7. It would have been good practice for the landlord to also explain how it would resolve the leak, damp, and mould, rather than focus solely on compensation. Nonetheless, this was not a part of the resident’s original complaint and its focus on compensation was in line with her escalation request. It confirmed its progress and intentions to her separately in the days either side of its complaint response, and she has confirmed that the matter has since been resolved.
  8. The resident’s complaint escalation listed matters, in addition to defects, damp, and mould, that she wanted the landlord to consider as part of a compensation review. The first of these was a period of no heating and hot water.
  9. The landlord acknowledged that this had resulted from a gas supply issue in late 2023. It referred to its associated £250 compensation payment to all leaseholders, including the resident, which it had written to her about in January 2024. Its response stated that it had no further offer to make for the matter, clearly explained its position, and was therefore reasonable.
  10. The next matter was the resident’s security concerns and what she said was a lack of street lighting. The landlord had previously explained that the development was not yet finished. It stated that it would not offer compensation, but explained the additional security measures it had taken since January 2024, which was clear, resolution focused, and in line with the evidence seen.
  11. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for its delays, the impact of the damp and mould, and the resident’s time, trouble, and frustration. It provided a defects schedule and addressed her related concerns. It provided clear responses to the matters she had asked it to consider compensation for. It offered compensation for the damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident has confirmed that further compensation has since been paid for a matterrelated to those above, which she is happy with.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint.