Southern Housing (202438607)

Background

1. The resident raised a disrepair case and following a pre-action settlement the landlord completed damp and mould works at the property. Following the works the resident said the damp and mould had returned. The resident has breathing difficulties, diabetes and other long term health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord made a record that the resident’s report of damp and mould should be treated as a priority. Despite this, it failed to contact her in a reasonable time. Once it made contact, it relied on the findings of its surveyor. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in how it responded. It offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure. It failed to provide a timely response at stage 1 despite extending its response timescale. The landlord acknowledged delays but the compensation it offered was not enough to put things right.

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 investigated

7. The resident believes the damp and mould impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told us that the damp and mould had been ongoing for a number of years. We have seen that the resident commenced pre action correspondence. A settlement was reached as part of the pre-action protocol and works were carried out in August 2024. As such, our investigation does not include any events prior to October 2024 when the resident raised her concern which led to this complaint. This is because both parties had an agreement in place which settled the dispute up to the point the works had commenced.
9. The resident has raised additional issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident has the option to raise these as complaints to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s consideration through its internal complaints procedure, the resident may refer her concerns to us at that point. As such, we have no power to investigate the following concerns:
   1. The resident’s concern that extractor fans were effecting her health.
   2. The resident’s belief that the landlord had treated her differently based on her race.
   3. The resident’s concern that the landlord had not given her a copy of her tenancy agreement.
10. The resident raised concerns about the action of her solicitors in respect of the disrepair case. We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions. We have no power to investigate the actions of a solicitor. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Legal Ombudsman if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.
11. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested to be moved to a different property. We are not able to tell a landlord how to utilise its housing stock. However, we can consider whether it responded reasonably in response to her request to move.
12. The resident has disputed the landlord’s findings about the cause of damp and mould. We are not able to determine the cause of any damp and mould. Instead our investigation will consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to her concerns and in line with its policies.

What we have investigated

13. As part of the settlement agreed between the parties, the landlord carried out damp and mould works in August 2024. Around 2 months later, on 16 October 2024, the resident told the landlord the works had not resolved the damp and mould. The landlord recorded this on its internal system as ‘high priority’. This was in line with the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy, which says it can prioritise works for vulnerable residents.
14. Despite the report being flagged in this way, the evidence shows that the landlord did not try to contact the resident until 7 November 2024. This was over 2 weeks later. As such, it took the landlord too long to respond in light of the priority it had given to the report. It did not provide an explanation for this delay.
15. A surveyor attended on 28 November 2024 and told the landlord they had not found any signs of damp and mould. They noted a smell of mildew and recommended the landlord replace extractor fans as the resident had not been using those already installed. It gave the resident advice on how to ventilate the property to reduce condensation.
16. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it did not have a record of the resident having reported the return of the damp and mould prior to the complaint. This was not an accurate reflection of the evidence we have been provided with. We have seen evidence that the resident reported the damp and mould to the landlord on 16 October 2024 and subsequently made her complaint on 31 October 2024. This inaccuracy by the landlord is evidence it did not fully or accurately investigate the matter at stage 1.
17. Given the findings of the surveyor, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was not an ongoing issue with damp and mould. Despite this, in light of the resident’s ongoing concerns, it committed to ask the contractor who had carried out the disrepair works to inspect the property. This was above its requirements and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
18. Our investigation of the evidence shows that the landlord’s disrepair team tried to contact the resident to arrange this further inspection on a number of occasions between 2 and 10 January 2025 but was unable to speak to her. The landlord left a voicemail on at least one occasion to try to arrange an appointment.
19. Within it stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its disrepair team had not made contact with the resident to arrange this additional inspection. It apologised and committed to do so. This apology was despite its disrepair team having taken a number of steps to try to arrange this.
20. The landlord addressed the resident’s request to move to another property. It advised her that it was unable to offer internal transfers. It provided her with advice on other options open to her should she wish to move. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide clarification to the resident as she had requested re-homing as a resolution to her complaint.
21. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered a total of £130 compensation for its failings. This was made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused with the lack of contact and outstanding concerns.
    2. £15 for the resident having to chase updates.
    3. £15 for the failure to contact the resident as promised.
22. Our investigation has identified that the landlord took too long in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould. However, its subsequent response in instructing a surveyor and requesting the contractor re-attend was reasonable.
23. We have not been provided with evidence that this further inspection by the contractor went head. The landlord did, however, provide evidence that it followed the advice of its surveyor and it replaced the extractor fans following the completion of the complaints procedure.
24. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
25. Although the landlord did not acknowledge the initial delay in responding to the resident’s report of damp and mould, it did consider the overall inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter. The compensation offered by the landlord was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. In our opinion the compensation offered satisfactorily resolved the complaint and put things right for the resident. This amounts to reasonable redress.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.
27. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 31 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 November 2024. It told her between November and 5 December 2024 that it needed more time to respond due to a staff member being on leave. It aimed to respond by 19 December 2024.
28. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 January 2025. This was 42 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was more than 4 times the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. Although the landlord kept the resident updated about the need for more time, it did not provide the response by its extended deadline. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation..
29. The resident escalated the complaint on 8 January 2025. The landlord told her on 12 February 2025 that it needed more time to respond due to a system outage. It aimed to do so by 19 February 2025. It subsequently sent the stage 2 response in line with this extended timeframe. This was 30 working days after the escalation request. The landlord acknowledged its delay to respond at stage 2 and offered £10 compensation.
30. In total, the landlord offered £35 for its complaint handling delays. Although the landlord kept in contact with the resident, its compensation offer was not sufficient. This is due to the overall effect on the resident. In addition, the resident was caused frustration when the landlord did not respond in line with the extended timeframe at stage 1. When taken together, the landlord’s combined failures amount to a determination of service failure.
31. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident we have ordered an additional £65 compensation. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £100. This is at the top of an amount recommended by our remedies guidance for situations where a landlord offered compensation which did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident by the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Our investigation identified the landlord’s stage 1 investigator was not aware of when the resident first made the report of a return of damp and mould in October 2024. The landlord may want to consider whether its training and processes allow its complaint handing staff to be aware of how to access relevant system information to ensure complaint responses are accurate.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally good. It was proactive about updating her of its need for more time to respond to the complaint.