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

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202500315)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500315

Southern Housing

28 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:
    1. reports of leaks into the property from the property above and associated repairs;
    2. reports of a blocked bath;
    3. reports of damp and mould;
    4. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives with her father who has a mental health condition. The resident is her father’s full-time carer.
  2. The reports of water leaks into the resident’s property relate to the property above who will be referred to as “Tenant A” within the report. The tenancy agreement for the Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it has been assumed the tenancy terms are the same.
  3. The resident reported on 20 March 2022 the bath was blocked causing a back surge into the bath. The landlord’s records do not show the date it attended to resolve this. The resident made a further report about the bath on 6 June 2022 and said the blockage meant the bath had to be emptied every 20 minutes. The landlord attended on June 2022.However its records do not provide any information about the steps taken to resolve the blockage.
  4. On 3 July 2022, the resident reported the bathroom was flooded by Tenant A. The resident described the leak as uncontainable. The landlord’s records do not provide any information about its response to the resident’s concerns.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 August 2022. The resident advised she had not received a response to the formal complaint made on 3 July 2022. The resident complained:
    1. Each time the bath was used water leaked through the bathroom ceiling, this resulted in dirty water to falling on her and her father.
    2. The bathroom had no lighting because the water had leaked into the bathroom ceiling.
    3. Parts of the bathroom ceiling had crumbled. The bathroom ceiling was also covered in black mould which was hazardous to her and her father.
    4. The bath did not drain, overflowed and had standing water.
    5. The water leak had spread from the bathroom into the kitchen. The ceiling walls had mould and flies. For the past 2 weekends, the bathroom had flooded into the hallway.
    6. Since the summer of 2021 the landlord had been aware of the property condition. A surveyor had inspected in April 2022 but had failed to act.
    7. This caused distress to her and her father and was affecting their physical and mental health.
    8. Her preferred outcome was to be moved into a suitable property as the current property was not fit for habitation.
  6. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2022. The landlord said its contractor had been unable to contact the resident to access the property on 11 July 2022. It also understood the resident had refused access for the repairs to be completed. It had arranged an appointment to renew the bathroom tiles and it would replaster the bathroom ceiling once the flooring works had been completed. The landlord also:
    1. Said it had not previously received a report about the bathroom lighting therefore it would not treat the report as a failure in its service.
    2. Said access was not given when its contractor attended to remedy the blocked bath. The resident needed to contact its contractor to make a new appointment.
    3. Concluded the complaint was not upheld as it had not identified any service failures.
  7. The same day, 24 August 2022, the resident expressed she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. The resident disputed she had refused access to its contractor. The resident said it was Tenant A who had refused access. In fact its contractor had visited her property on several occasions and taken pictures of the property condition. The resident concluded by saying the reported issues remained unresolved.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint on 22 November 2022.
  9. Between December 2022 and July 2024, the resident reported:
    1. The bath was leaking on at least 7 different occasions.
    2. Leaks from Tenant A into her bathroom on at least 10 separate occasions.
    3. No lighting to the bathroom resulting from the leaks on 3 different occasions.
    4. Damp and mould in the property on at least 7 separate occasions.
    5. The landlord had not provided its Stage 2 complaint response on at least 22 separate occasions.
  10. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 11 July 2024. The landlord apologised for its delay in providing the complaint response. It acknowledged it had not acted promptly to address the access issues to Tenant A’s property. The landlord:
    1. Acknowledged it had failed to act following Tenant A’s decision not to provide access for the water leak to be resolved.
    2. Explained the delay in organising the temporary move to alternative accommodation.
    3. Said its drainage contractor had attended on 28 May 2024 to resolve the blockage to the bath. After this remedial works would start in the property.
    4. Apologised for its service failures and upheld the complaint.
    5. Awarded overall compensation of £1710. This was broken down as:
      1. Failure to complete work by second appointment – £60.
      2. Inconvenience, time and trouble – £1500.
      3. Failure to respond within timescales – £25.
      4. Service failures – £125.
      5. Failure to follow process or policy – £15.
      6. Repeated failures to reply to chasers from customer – £15.
      7. Miscommunication/ incorrect information – £15.
      8. Unsatisfactory handling of complaint – £50.
  11. After the formal complaint ended, the following happened:
    1. On 21 October 2024, the landlord agreed to temporarily move the resident and her father to alternative accommodation.
    2. Tenant A told the landlord he would not provide access for the repairs to be carried out unless he was provided alternative accommodation.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us. The resident said her preferred outcome was for the landlord to apologise, acknowledge her poor experience and award compensation for the damage to her belongings. Also, she wanted the compensation increased to reflect the stress, detriment and inconvenience she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In its complaint review, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation to the resident. The compensation awarded reflected factors outlined in its compensation procedure. However, the landlord did not explain how much compensation it awarded for each complaint it considered. For those reasons, the investigation report will apportion the overall compensation award across the different complaint elements.

Reports of leaks into the property and associated repairs;

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The resident has said the issues have been ongoing since 2019. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in 2020 about leaks into the bathroom. There is no evidence this complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process or was escalated to us. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 2021 that was considered during the landlord’s formal complaint response.
  2. The resident told us her father has a mental health condition and she is his full-time carer. Living in the property impacted her and her father. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction can have a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. The ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the complaint. These matters are likely best suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless the investigation will consider distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her father.
  3. This has clearly been a difficult period for the resident and her father. We appreciate the stress this may have caused. However, this investigation must consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement. This also includes any relevant legislation.
  4. Under Section 11 of the landlord and tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Once the landlord has notice of a repair, the repair should be carried out within a reasonable time frame. The industry standard is usually between 28 to 30 days for a routine repair.
  5. Given there was a history of the resident reporting leaks into the bathroom, the landlord should have treated the recent reports from the resident with added urgency. The landlord’s records show it assessed in 2020 the reason for the leaks into the property was caused by children pouring water on the floor. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action under Tenant A’s tenancy agreement or its responsive repairs policy to resolve the reports regarding water penetrating into the resident’s property. This is not appropriate.
  6. The resident reported leaks through the bathroom ceiling from Tenant A property on 3 July 2022 and August 2022. The resident said each time she used the bath, the ceiling leaked and pieces of the ceiling crumbled into the bath. Despite the resident’s reports, the landlord’s records do not show it acted to resolve the water penetration into the bathroom. The landlord is expected to proactively manage the repair to complete it as soon as practically possible. It is a failing the landlord did not act in line with its repairing obligations which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her father.
  7. The landlord in its Stage 1 complaint response blamed the resident for its lack of response. The landlord said its contractors had tried to attend on several occasions to resolve the water leak into the property. The landlord’s complaint response is inaccurate which caused distress and frustration to the resident. This is not reasonable as it is evident from its records, the difficulty experienced by its contractors was obtaining access from Tenant A and not the resident.
  8. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors. The landlord’s records did not evidence the information it relied on regarding the appointments date and times it said were made with the resident to resolve the reported leak. The landlord’s repair policy says it recognises medical vulnerability and will investigate to resolve a matter promptly. The landlord did not demonstrate it acted in line with this. Had it reviewed the appointments made to resolve the reports of water leaking into the resident’s property it would have realised its mistake in blaming the resident. Its mistake negatively impacted the relationship between the landlord and resident.
  9. Landlord’s should communicate clearly with residents setting out its responsibilities to help manage a resident’s expectations. In this particular case, the landlord did not do this as it took from August 2022 until 22 November 2022 for it to speak to the resident about its delay resolving the water leaks into the bathroom. In its communication, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it had not acted since June 2022. However, this resulted in a 4-month period it had not monitored its contractors actions or progress to resolve the water leak into the bathroom. This failing caused distress and uncertainty to the resident.
  10. The landlord acknowledged on 18 May 2023 its contractors were experiencing difficulty getting access into Tenant A property. The landlord said it made multiple attempts to contact Tenant A using different contact channels such as cold calling. However, the landlord’s submission to us only demonstrated evidence of written contact with Tenant A on 6 July 2023 requesting access to his property. Considering the length of time the water leak had affected the resident and her father, this was not reasonable as it added to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  11. The resident made further reports on 4 August 2023 and 16 August 2023 of water leaks into the property. The landlord’s contractor said it attended on 10 August 2023 but Tenant A did not provide access. Under the tenancy agreement Tenant A is required to provide access to the landlord for repairs to be carried out. It took until 22 August 2023 before it asked its housing management service to assist with getting access to Tenant A property. There was a further delay until 8 September 2023 before Tenant A agreed to provide access for 3 days. The landlord’s records do not show whether Tenant A did provide access to the landlord’s contractor. This is a failing as the landlord’s records should show the actions taken and whether these were effective to resolve the water leak into the resident’s property.
  12. The resident made further reports of water leaks into the bathroom ceiling on 2 October 2023, 16 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. The landlord believed the leak was resolved in December 2023. Looking at its records, it is not clear how it came to this decision. The landlord’s contractor advised in February 2024 the leak was ongoing and the landlord said it did not receive the quote they had sent until March 2024. This shows a lack of monitoring by the landlord regarding the work carried out by its contractor of which it was responsible. There is no evidence the landlord chased the contractor which caused further delay in carrying out the work to the resident’s property. The details of the quote have not been provided to us without this it is not possible to comment on the works its contractor had identified were necessary to resolve the water leaks into the property.
  13. The landlord considered a different approach to get access to Tenant A property. On 10 May 2024 the landlord asked the caretaker to contact Tenant A to get access to the property. The landlord internally discussed the limitation of this approach. At the same time it discussed taking formal legal action. This was the first time the landlord considered this. This was not reasonable as it had taken 2 years following the resident’s reports of the leak into her bathroom and it had been unable to gain access to Tenant A property. Furthermore, following the discussion, it is not evident the landlord did contact its legal team to get advice about obtaining access to Tenant A property to resolve the leak. This was not reasonable as its continued delay caused further frustration and distress to the resident and her father.
  14. The landlord obtained access to Tenant A property on 28 May 2024. The landlord’s contractor said the reason for the leak was Tenant A did not have a shower curtain. This caused water to fall on the floor. This was the same reason given in 2020 when the resident made a similar report about water leaking into the property. There is no evidence the landlord took any tenancy action following the report from its contractor. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its responsibility to resolve leaks into the property and it has not demonstrated it met those obligations. The landlord’s contractor also found a leak to the toilet pan, which it replaced. This was reasonable to mitigate some of the water penetration into the resident’s property.
  15. The resident reported a further leak into the bathroom on 2 July 2024 and the bathroom was flooded on 11 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acted regarding the resident’s reports. This is not reasonable. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response apologised to the resident and acknowledged it had not given reasons for the delays she had experienced. The landlord recognised it should have acted earlier to resolve the resident’s reports. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in the landlord addressing and resolving the leaks into the bathroom. This is not reasonable.

Electrics

  1. The resident complained in August 2022 as a result of the leaks, there was no lighting in the bathroom. The landlord adopted a narrow approach in its Stage1 complaint response by telling the resident it had treated her report as a service request and signposted her to contact its repairs contractor. The landlord did not identify the hazard caused to the resident and her father with the lack of lighting to the property. This was not reasonable and caused detriment to the resident and her father.
  2. There was a gap of around 7 months until the resident raised a report on 7 March 2023 that the water penetration had affected the electrics to the bathroom. The landlord agreed on 18 May 2023 for a specialist electrician to attend. The electrician assessed it could not act until the water penetration into the bathroom ceiling was resolved. The resident said the bathroom lighting was restored in June 2023. The landlord’s records do not give the date. There is no reason to doubt the resident’s account. The landlord has not demonstrated it provided any interim lighting to reduce any health and safety hazard to the resident and her father. This is a failing and represents an unacceptable delay in the landlord restoring the bathroom lighting.
  3. For its service failings the landlord made an overall compensation award of £1,710. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of how it calculated the compensation for the separate elements of the residents complaint. Of the £1,710 offered in its complaints review, £950 is apportioned for its acknowledged failings in its handling of the leak into the bathroom. The remainder is apportioned later in this report regarding the other concerns raised by the resident. Apportioning the landlord’s compensation offer in this way enables us to assess its failures against each aspect of the complaint. We have considered the landlord’s wording of its compensation offer in arriving at the figures used.
  4. Our Remedies Guidance sets out where residents have been significantly impacted by a landlord’s actions payments between £600 to £1000 are appropriate. The compensation offered was within a range we would recommend where there has been failings which had a significant impact on a resident and is considered proportionate. While the landlord’s compensation offer is considered proportionate for the failings experienced, it is not sufficient to prevent a finding of maladministration.
  5. This is because there were delays progressing the repairs and a lack of active repair management. It is evident the landlord had poor oversight of its contractors and failed to monitored their actions while the bathroom works were progressed. This contributed to the detrimental impact experienced by the resident and her father. The landlord delayed in addressing the water leaks and the lack of lighting in the bathroom. The landlord’s blamed the resident for not providing access to its contractor when this was clearly the fault of Tenant A. It took too long to consider the action it could take under the tenancy agreement and has not evidenced it did so. The landlord’s records do not evidence its contact with Tenant A or the outcome of inspections it had undertaken. This demonstrates a failing to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Reports of a blocked bath

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for sanitation.
  2. The resident reported the bath was blocked in March 2022. The landlord’s repair policy says that routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible and does not give a timescale. The industry standard is for repairs to be completed within 28 to 30 days. The landlord’s repair records do not give the date its contractor attended or the action taken if any. This is not reasonable as it is not possible to assess whether the landlord attended in a reasonable timescale or met its obligations.
  3. The landlord received further reports about leaks from the bath on 26 June 2022 and 10 July 2022. The resident said there was water leaking under the bath. In August 2022 and December 2022 the resident reported the blockage to the bath remained. Again, this is evidence of further record keeping failures as the landlord’s records do not show how it responded to the resident’s reports and whether its response were effective to meet its repair obligations.
  4. Around 2 months later on 13 February 2023, the resident reported the bathroom was flooded. The resident said this was because the bath was blocked. The landlord’s records state it would arrange for a drainage company to attend, however there is no evidence it did so. The landlord agreed for dehumidifiers to be provided and it took over a month before they were delivered on 16 March 2023. This demonstrated a lack of urgency by the landlord despite the reported vulnerabilities to remedy and resolve the bath repair. This caused detriment to the resident and her father and was not reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s records show the repairs required to the resident’s property were discussed at a meeting with its contractor on 18 May 2023. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors. It is not reasonable that following the meeting there is no evidence of any action taken to remedy the blocked bath and the situation continued to drift. The resident reported on 26 February 2024 the property was flooded. There is no evidence the landlord acted until it arranged for its drainage company to attend on 27 May 2024. This represented an unacceptable delay to the resident and her father causing inconvenience and distress.
  6. The drainage company told the landlord it had cleared the blockage on 28 May 2024. The landlord’s records do not give the reasons for the blockage. It took the landlord about 5 months from December 2023 to 28 May 2024 to resolve the blockage to the bath and stop the back surging into the bath. While the landlord’s repair policy does not give a timescale for routine repairs to be completed. This is unacceptable and represents an unreasonably delay in resolving the blockage to the bath.
  7. Our special report into the landlord (May 2024) addressed the landlord’s repair timescales and made a recommendation for the landlord to review its repair policy. This was for it to become more customer centric giving specific repair timescales so residents would know when it would attend to resolve any repair reports. For those reasons an order has not been made to the landlord regarding this.
  8. The landlord in its complaints review offered compensation for its service failures. Of the overall £1,710 compensation offered, for this element of the complaint, the compensation has been apportioned to £200 for the landlord’s identified failings. Our Remedies Guidance says payments between £100 to £600 are payable for service failures which adversely affect the resident.
  9. The compensation offered for the identified failures in resolving the blockage to the bath fell towards the lower end of the payment that could be awarded to the resident. The compensation offered was not proportionate for the failings identified. Given the resident’s account of the impact to her and her father each time the bath back surged and the lack of monitoring by the landlord. The landlord failed to follow its own repair policy which says it will act quickly when vulnerable people occupy its property. The landlord did not demonstrate it did so. For those reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made and additional compensation of £200 awarded to make an overall compensation award of £400 for the landlord’s failings in resolving the blockage to the bath.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident told us on 6 August 2025, she had returned to the tenancy in June 2025. The damp in the property and the back surge to the bath remained unresolved. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something we can investigate at this time. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied for consideration.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying
  3. We have previously acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her and her father’s mental health. However, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health. This is because assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that we are unable to provide.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould framework sets out its response times to reports of damp and mould it receives. It says the landlord will allocate a dedicated case handler, inspect and agree an action plan with residents.
  5. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 4 occasions between 19 June 2022 to 24 October 2022. The resident reported black mould on the bathroom ceiling, mould and flies on the ceiling and walls. The resident said the landlord had twice attended. There is no reason to doubt the resident’s account. It is noted the landlord’s records did not record these visits. This is a failing as it does not meet its framework for handling damp reports. Furthermore, the landlord did not categorise the hazard in the property, allocate a point of contact or agree an action plan with the resident as is required in its damp and mould framework.
  6. Risk assessment should be undertaken to make sure that individual needs, vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments are identified, addressed and properly documented. Where delays occur, resident are to be kept informed though clearer, more frequent communication. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould says that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach and be proactive in identifying potential problems. The landlord’s lack of action in this case was unacceptable. The landlord missed a number of opportunities to address the damp and mould reported by the resident.
  7. Landlords have a statutory function to carry out annual gas safety inspections. This is necessary to ensure residents live in a safe environment. The resident said in December 2022 and December 2023 the annual gas safety inspections was not carried out due to the severity of the damp and mould in the property. There is no evidence the landlord addressed the resident’s reports to assure itself it had complied with the necessary safety checks. Given the landlord’s responsibilities for gas safety, the landlord would be expected to follow up on such reports.
  8. Good communication between the landlord and resident reinforces trust in the landlord’s services. There were too many repeated occurrences of poor communication between the landlord and resident. The resident had to contact the landlord regarding an appointment for 27 December 2022 which had not been agreed in advance. In her communication, the resident said she was unaware of the reason for the appointment. Effective appointments are prearranged with residents at a mutually convenient time, setting out their purpose. On many occasions within the events under consideration in this report, the landlord did not do so.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould framework says it will arrange a surveyor inspection within 10 working days. The resident said surveyor inspections were carried out by 12 January 2023 and 31 May 2023. The landlord’s records do not have any information about the inspections advising when they were carried out or their outcomes. This is a failing as landlords should record the outcome of inspections. Without this information it is not possible to know the property condition at the time of the inspections and whether the property condition satisfied its obligations under the tenancy agreement to keep the property in repair. The landlord cancelled an inspection raised on 8 June 2023 and 9 July 2023, without giving reasons. This is not reasonable.
  10. When repairs are taking longer than scheduled, landlords should make sure there is clear communication with the resident and options discussed with the resident. The landlord should evidence they have taken concerns seriously and investigated them promptly. The resident said the property was not fit for human habitation on 17 March 2023 and 22 August 2023. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in obtaining the landlord’s response.
  11. The landlord took until 13 September 2023 to address the resident’s concerns. The property director did not agree to the resident’s request for a temporary move to alternative accommodation. The property director accepted the majority of the property was affected by the damp and mould, however the works required to the property were not intrusive. The assessment of the property director also considered the impact to the resident’s father which was in line with its responsive repair policy. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional advice it receives, it is not clear the evidence relied on to make the assessment the property was fit for human habitation.
  12. The landlord changed its position on 20 September 2023 and agreed for the resident and her father to move into temporary alternative accommodation. Reasons are not given for the landlord’s change of position. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s records should set out its decision making, showing the factors considered and the reasons for this.
  13. The resident reported damage to her belongings on 15 June 2023 and 16 October 2023. The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses even though the resident said she had to throw away her belongings as they were affected by the mould in the property. The landlord’s compensation policy says if damage is caused to belongings the resident should complete a claim form. There is no evidence the landlord in its complaint review informed the resident of this or provided the claim form. This is not reasonable as the landlord was aware of the property condition and should have informed the resident whether it would assess the damaged items through its complaints process or refer the matter to its insurers for a liability claim to be made. An order has been made about this below.
  14. The landlord arranged for a mould wash to be carried out to the bathroom ceiling on 15 June 2023. The resident disputed this was carried out advising its contractor said extensive works were required to the property. The resident also told the landlord on 20 July 2023 the damp and mould had spread to the kitchen and was unusable. Further reports about the property condition were made on 6 November 2023 and 13 May 2024. The only action taken by the landlord was to undertake a mould wash on 3 June 2024. The landlord has not provided any records regarding the property condition at the time of the mould wash apart from due to her father’s medical condition, the resident did not allow access to her father’s room. This resulted in the resident and her father living in unsuitable conditions for a protracted period of time. This was not reasonable.
  15. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. The resident was not updated regularly and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates. Further, there were delays responding to emails which caused frustration to the resident. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear her living conditions and that of her father were impacted by the property condition.
  16. The landlord in its complaint review apologised for its service failings and offered compensation to the resident. As previously stated, the landlord has not provided a breakdown of how its overall compensation award applies to each complaint element. Of the overall compensation awarded of £1,710, £470 has been apportioned for this element of the resident’s complaint.
  17. Given the extended period of time the damp and mould remained unaddressed, the compensation offer is not sufficient considering the impact to the resident and her father. Our Remedies Guidance suggests payments between £600 to £1000 when there has been a service failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The resident and her father experienced distress and uncertainty and there were unacceptable delays organising the temporary move to alternative accommodation. This indicates that the landlord did not learn lessons from the outcome of the case or keep to the commitments it made in its final complaint response.
  18. The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its own damp and mould framework when handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. There was a lack of ownership resulting in the resident having to make frequent contact with the landlord regarding the property condition. Inspections were carried out, however there are no reports setting out the property condition or the works required to remove the hazards described by the resident. Given the resident’s father’s vulnerability, it was especially important an action plan was agreed with the resident giving information about the works to be carried out and when. There is no evidence the landlord monitored, checked or prioritised work to the property. This significantly impacted the resident and her father.
  19. Had the landlord followed the guidance in our damp and mould spotlight report (2021) it may have acted sooner. Also, the delay experienced by the resident may have been reduced and the landlord might have met its obligations sooner. Due to the lack of action by the landlord in dealing with the mould and the impact over a prolonged period of time on the resident and her father, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould. For those reasons a finding of maladministration has been made and an order made below for an additional award of £500 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience over the extended period of time.

Associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
  2. The resident said she complained to the landlord in July 2022. The resident did not say how she made her complaint. While there is no reason to doubt the resident’s account, there is no evidence of the complaint being received by the landlord.
  3. The resident resent her complaint to the landlord on 10 August 2022 and provided further information on 11 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 3 working days on 16 August 2022. This was appropriate as it acted within the timescales outlined in its complaints procedure and our Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2022, taking 8 working days. This was reasonable as the landlord acted in line with its published complaint timescales.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 August 2022. The resident chased her complaint response on 5 separate occasions between 30 August 2022 and 24 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 November 2022. The landlord took 63 working days which represented an unacceptable delay to the resident which caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident. The landlord’s complaint procedure says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord’s delay is likely to have caused the resident to feel her concerns were not taken seriously and the resident said she was unaware of who was responsible for resolving her complaint.
  6. Effective complaint handling processes are fundamental to maintaining resident trust and satisfaction. Where the landlord cannot provide its complaint response within its complaint timescales, an extension should be agreed with the resident. While the landlord infrequently apologised for its delay, it did not do this. Neither did it act to mitigate the lengthy delays experienced by the resident.
  7. The resident chased the S2 complaint response on 4 separate occasions between 22 March 2023 to 16 May 2024. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling delays on 15 June 2023. The resident told the landlord she did not want the complaint closed as the repairs remained outstanding. The landlord missed an opportunity to explain to the resident the importance of it providing a position on her complaint within its published timescales. The landlord should have explained the closure of the complaint would not stop it monitoring and progressing any commitments made to conclusion.
  8. The complaint handler left the organisation and the new complaint handler introduced herself to the resident on 5 July 2023. This was important for the resident to know who was responsible for resolving her complaint. The landlord’s communication with the resident did not improve as the resident chased the landlord’s complaint response on at least 11 separate occasions between 5 August 2023 and 11 July 2024. Despite the complaint handler introducing herself, the lack of communication caused the resident to repeatedly request the landlord tell her who was responsible for her complaint. The landlord did not respond. This was not reasonable as the lack of contact with the resident undermined her trust the landlord was taking her concerns seriously.
  9. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 11 July 2024. The landlord’s complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code says landlord should provide complaint responses at the second stage of the complaints procedure within 20 working days. The landlord took 414 working days. This represents a significantly unacceptable delay to the resident causing distress and uncertainty to the resident.
  10. The landlord in its complaints review apologised for its complaint handling failures. It awarded overall compensation of £90 for this. This was broken down as £25 for its failure to respond within timescales; £15 for its failure to follow process; £50 for its unsatisfactory handling of the complaint. This was not sufficient or proportionate to put things right for the significant delays experienced by the resident. Our Remedies Guidance says offers of compensation should reflect the impact to the resident. In line with this an additional compensation award has been made of £210 for the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
  11. When landlords make offers to carry out works on its final response, it would be expected to complete those works within a reasonable period of time, and to evidence to this Service that it had taken some learning from any identified failures. However, it has failed to evidence that it did either and did not demonstrate it had learnt from its failings.
  12. Our special report into the landlord (May 2024) looked at the landlord’s complaint handling. This investigation has not made orders for the improvement to the landlord’s complaint handling as this was addressed in the special report.
  13. For the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint including the poor communication and record keeping a finding of severe maladministration has been made. The landlord failed to put things right for the resident during its complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the property and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked bath.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in person (or/and in writing if preferred by the resident), and at the property for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident overall compensation award of £2,620. This includes the £1,710 it awarded during its complaint process. This is broken down as an additional:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to resolve the blockage to the bath.
      2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to resolve the reported damp and mould to the property.
      3. £210 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failings.
  2. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £1,710. it has already offered to the resident during its complaint review, it can offset this amount from the £1,710.00 awarded above and pay the remaining balance to the resident.
  3. If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident to confirm the action it has taken to prevent further water leaks into the bathroom. A copy to be provided to us.
    2. contact the resident regarding the claim of damage to her belongings. It should inform the resident in writing whether it will assess her complaint or refer the matter for the resident to make a liability claim. A copy of its decision to be provided to us.
    3. contact the resident to obtain information regarding her father’s vulnerabilities. It should update its systems to reflect any adjustments needed and confirm this in writing to the resident.
    4. contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a property inspection. A copy of the inspection report outlining any works required to be provided to the resident and us.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the above timescales.