Southern Housing (202424775)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. They said they have health conditions that affect their breathing. They reported ongoing problems with damp and mould in their property in the years leading up to their complaint to the landlord in February 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs and damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and damp and mould

4. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint responses. However, the compensation it offered was not proportionate, considering the distress and inconvenience the resident said they have been caused. The issues continued beyond its final complaint response and some repairs are outstanding, so the landlord has not fully resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord recognised its complaint responses were delayed and not in line with its policy. It offered compensation, but this was not enough to recognise the time and trouble it caused the resident chasing a response to their complaint.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident reported damp coming through their bedroom wall 4 years before their complaint to the landlord in December 2023. The landlord booked in works to repoint the walls but cancelled this job. Although this relates to the resident’s complaint, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of historic issues. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords and escalate to us within a reasonable timeframe. This is usually within around 12 months of the matter arising.

What we have considered

7. We have considered events from 15 December 2022, when the resident reported damp and mould in their bedroom. It is unclear whether the landlord finished the repairs around this time. Its records say repairs were “practically complete” on 14 December 2022, but it did not say what it did. The resident reported the problem again in February 2023. The landlord booked an appointment for 22 March 2023, but it cancelled this job on 29 March 2023 and gave no explanation.
8. Landlords should keep accurate records so they can manage their residents housing needs and provide a good service. In this case the records lacked clarity between February and November 2023. They show the landlord booked in repairs to the resident’s extractor fan on 3 occasions and they say, “practically completed”. It is reasonable to assume the landlord did not fully complete these repairs. This represents a failure as its policy says it aims to complete repairs associated with damp and mould within 6 weeks.
9. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed and cancelled for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes, we expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. They should consider if there is anything they can do to mitigate the impact of any delays. This might include providing dehumidifiers. There was no evidence the landlord kept the resident fully updated throughout the repairs or considered any interim solutions.
10. The landlord’s records about scheduled works to resolve a guttering leak in March 2024 did not explain whether the landlord completed these works. However, an internal email suggests it did. There is no evidence it completed all the repairs the resident reported, such those to the extractor fan. It was therefore appropriate the landlord acknowledged its service failures in its complaint responses and offered compensation.
11. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In determining this we considered the events following its final complaint response and whether the landlord ‘put things right’. This includes whether it completed the repairs to tackle the damp and mould within its policy timeframe.
12. The landlord said it identified structural repairs in October 2024. This included “applying liquid membrane”. There is no evidence it did these works, and the resident complained again on 10 October 2024. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 27 November 2024. Its inspection report said, “possible damp ingress from failing pointing and low damp proof course”. However, there is no evidence the landlord started or completed this work or explained its decision to the resident. This leaves the complaint unresolved.
13. The landlord recognised some of its failings in its complaint responses. However, the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the scale of our findings, in line with our remedies guidance. The issues had a significant impact on the resident; they spent a lot of time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response. The landlord’s records say the resident reported they were “upset and frustrated with the lack of communication and works raised”.
14. We found maladministration in this case and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay more compensation. Its record keeping and communication was poor. It did not complete all the repairs or fully explain its decisions for not doing works to the resident. The resident said they still have damp and mould in the property. They told us the landlord said it will revisit their property in November 2025, but we have not seen evidence of its plans. When assessing an appropriate amount of compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience and the resident’s time and trouble chasing the repairs.

15. The landlord missed an opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint at a much earlier stage. They complained to the landlord on 29 December 2023 but there is no evidence it recorded or responded to this. This was not in line with its policy which says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. When they complained again in February 2024 the landlord’s records show it should have responded by 27 February 2024. However, there is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint until 22 March 2024, which was a significantly delayed reply.
16. The landlord’s policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed. It said it would respond by 10 April 2024 but contacted them on this day to extend this timescale to 24 April 2024. There is no evidence the resident agreed to this, meaning its extension was not in line with the Code.
17. The resident was frustrated with the landlord’s complaint handling. They chased it for a reply on 10 and 25 April 2024. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 1 complaint response and offered compensation. The resident told the landlord they were unhappy with the complaint outcome on 10 and 25 June 2024, and 31 July 2024. However, the landlord did not progress or acknowledge the escalated complaint until 7 August 2024. This was not in line with the Code or the 5 working day timescale in its policy.
18. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures in its final complaint response. The amount it offered was not proportionate to the scale of our findings. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling for the failures identified. We ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

19. The landlord recognised its failures and offered the resident compensation. However, it did not provide a clear summary of the repairs and its estimated timescales for responding to them in its final complaint response. For example, it did not explain what it would do to address the issues with the resident’s damp proof membrane. The landlord would benefit from being much clearer on its proposals to tackle outstanding repairs in its complaint responses to avoid repeat complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s repair records could have been clearer. It recorded several repairs as “partially completed”. It was unclear what it did to partially resolve its repairs and there was no evidence it was proactive in rescheduling repairs it had not fully completed.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process was poor. It did not contact the resident when it said it would, and the resident chased the landlord for responses on several occasions. The landlord would benefit from a process to ensure complaints are better managed and escalated in line within its policies, particularly when staff are on leave.