Southern Housing (202337009)

Decision
Case ID	202337009
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is situated in a block of flats.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

Reports of damp and mould in the property.
Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
There was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord apologised to the resident and made an offer of compensation for its handling of her reports of damp and mould. However, we are of the view that the compensation offered is unreasonable in the circumstances. It has also not evidenced that it has completed all the works recommended by its surveyor and the resident has told us that the damp and mould remains at her property.

Complaint handling

Whilst there were unreasonable delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses, it took reasonable steps in the circumstances to put things right for the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £695 made up as follows: £295 as offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the bathroom of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 12 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2024	The resident made her stage 1 complaint on this date. She told the landlord that: A surveyor had come out to her property in November 2023 because she had damp and mould in her bathroom. She said that the surveyors identified the works needed to resolve the problem. She was told that the landlord would book in these works for her and that it would keep her updated with dates for appointments but that this did not happen. Contractors had come to her property but she had had to turn them away because had not been told about the appointment beforehand and was not available at that time. Contractors had rebooked the appointment but then did not attend this new slot, despite her having taken time off work to be available for them. She said that it took her several attempts to get through to the landlord for it to tell her that the appointment had been cancelled, and that she had not been offered an explanation or an apology for the missed appointment. It eventually attended her property for a mould wash, but the operative told her that this was a pointless job because it would not address the cause of the mould and it would therefore return. Contractors also did not attend an appointment to fix her extractor fan. She said that she had again taken time off for this appointment, but no one attended. She was having to use her annual leave for appointments that it did not bother attending. She would like it to survey her bathroom again and book in the correct jobs.
14 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on this date. It told the resident that: She had first reported the damp and mould in her property on 3 November 2023. It said that it attended on 23 November 2023 to inspect and identify if follow-up works were required. These works included works to fix the leaking pipes causing the damp and mould; a 3-part mould wash of the affected area; redecoration of the ceiling that had been affected by a leak from above and works to repair her extractor fan to improve ventilation. It had instructed a plumber who completed the works to repair the leak on 12 December 2023. It recognised that the ceiling redecoration and the extractor fan works remained outstanding at that time. It was sorry for the delay and said that the remaining works had been booked for 23 March 2024. It said that this was to accommodate the fact that the resident had no more annual leave allowance left to take for appointments. It would be sending a specialist damp and mould surveyor to attend her property to inspect and decide what works were required in relation to the mould. It said that this appointment would have to be during the week and so she had been offered an afternoon appointment. It would oversee the works and make sure that they were completed within the timeframes provided. It would be upholding her complaint because of the delay in it booking follow-up works. It would offer the resident £170 in compensation, made up as follows: £70 for her time, trouble and inconvenience. £15 for the lack of communication that she received relating to the repairs. £15 for her having to chase the repairs. £15 for its failure to “follow process” when booking follow up works”. £50 for its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
27 June 2024	The resident made her stage 2 complaint on this date. She said that: The surveyor that attended her property on 21 March 2024 outlined repairs that were still needed. The landlord had completed some repairs on 23 March 2024 but that this did not include the works that she needed to her extractor fan. She wanted clarification on when the landlord would be completing the outstanding repairs.
31 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on this date. It told the resident that: The landlord had completed a redecoration of her bathroom on 21 March 2024. It said that the extractor fan was not replaced on this date because the electrician had not been available. It was sorry for its delay in acknowledging her stage 2 complaint, as it recognised that it should have done this by 4 July 2024 but that this did not happen until 16 July 2024. It would be providing its complaint team with feedback to make sure that it sticks to its complaint policy timescales in the future. It was sorry that the extractor fan appointment booked for 23 March 2024 had not gone ahead. It said that it had chased its contractors for an update from April to the present date but that it had not had a response. It was sorry for the time it had taken to action the repair to the extractor fan as this was not acceptable. It said that its contractors’ communication had been poor and that this had contributed to the inconvenience that the resident had experienced. It was sorry for the confusion that the resident had experienced but clarified that her extractor fan would need replacing. It would be increasing the compensation that it had offered at stage 1 for the additional impact that the resident had experienced. It had asked its contractors to get back to her within 5 working days. It would oversee the outstanding works and make sure that they were completed within the timeframes it had given. It would be upholding the resident’s complaint. It said it was sorry for the impact that this had had on the resident. It would be increasing its compensation offer to £295, made up as follows: £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience the situation had caused the resident. £60 for the failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. £25 for the delay in acknowledging her stage 2 complaint. £15 for the lack of communication that she had received relating to repairs. £15 for her having to chase repairs. £15 for its failure to follow process when booking follow up works. £15 for the repeated visits to resolve the outstanding repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident made her referral to the Ombudsman on 19 January 2024. It is noted that this was prior to the landlord providing its stage 1 complaint response. However, the resident has since confirmed to us that she wishes to pursue this referral with us. The resident told us in her referral that: She had been trying to get the damp and mould in the property resolved for several months. A surveyor visited her property and listed the repairs needed. Contractors either do not attend or attend outside of the scheduled time frames. Contractors do not do repairs properly and that the landlord is not taking her complaint seriously. She cannot live with damp and mould any longer because it is affecting her mental health. She said she hates going home to a damp and mouldy property. She wants the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and respond to her stage 1 complaint, as the deadline for its stage 1 complaint response had already passed.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repair policy says that a ‘responsive’ or ‘reactive’ repair is one that involves day-to-day maintenance work in response to a request from a resident. It does not define exactly how long it will take to complete a responsive repair. However, by law, once a landlord is told about disrepair to a property that it is responsible for, it is on notice to carry out a reasonable enquiry into the cause of the disrepair and then carry out repairs. This should be done in a reasonable period of time after it has been put on notice. What is a reasonable period depends on all the circumstances of a case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, especially when the issue is complicated. However, the landlord should be proactive in its management of the repair and complete works as soon as it can. The landlord should also complete works to make the property safe in the meantime if there is an immediate health and safety risk to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first made it aware of the damp and mould in the property on 14 November 2023. The landlord attended the property on 21 November 2023 to inspect and found that the damp and mould was caused by a leak from the toilet that was in turn spreading to the ceiling. It also found that the extractor fan was not working and that there was damage to the bathroom ceiling because of a historic leak.
The landlord attended the property to complete works to fix the leaking pipes on 12 December 2023. Remedial works were therefore completed 20 working days after the resident’s first report of this issue, which was a reasonable response by the landlord.
However, when the resident made her referral to us on 19 January 2024, she said that the damp and mould remained ongoing. The resident had told the landlord that this was the case in her stage 1 complaint response dated 3 January 2024.
The landlord then did not re-investigate this problem until 1 March 2024. It recognised that the works it had already completed were not sufficient and identified that the fact that the extractor fan was not working was likely a contributory factor. It then raised works for a specialist damp and mould surveyor to inspect the property to check the extractor fan and post-inspect the works that had been completed. This was unreasonable by the landlord as this did not take place until some 2 months after the resident informed it that the issue remained ongoing.
By the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 31 July 2024, it had been a total of 9 months since the resident first reported the damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response that several works required to resolve the damp and mould were still outstanding. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait and the issue to not be resolved. During this 9-month period:
1. There were multiple, unsuccessful visits in which contractors either did not attend appointments or the resident was not told about booked appointments. This contributed to both the resident’s frustration and the delays experienced.
2. The landlord raised multiple jobs, but it did not authorise works in a timely way or, as in the case of the mould wash works, the works were not sufficient to prevent further leaks.
3. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord booking the works that had been proposed by its surveyors. The surveyors had identified the works needed in November 2023 and these were not booked until nearly 5 months later in March 2023.
4. Despite the landlord saying that it would keep the resident updated on the progress of works, this did not happen. Instead, an unreasonable burden was placed on the resident to chase the landlord for updates, notify it of repeated issues and to provide updates on works. This lack of communication was a failing by the landlord, and it ultimately considerably contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress. It was also a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged some of its failures, for which it apologised and offered the resident a total of £295 in compensation. When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact that those failures had on the resident. In this case it is evident that the impact on the resident was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The resident telling the landlord that it had filled her with confidence following its stage 2 complaint response as it had reassured her that works would be completed and the issue resolved. She said that it had not done what it said it would do and she had been left feeling disappointed and frustrated.
2. The resident telling us that the condition of her property was affecting her mental health and that she hated going home to a damp and mouldy property.
3. The resident telling us that she felt as though the landlord was not taking her complaints seriously.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we are of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. As already explained, by the time it issued its stage 2 complaint response, the issue had already been ongoing for 9 months.
The resident has since told us that the damp and mould remains in her property. This means that the resident has been experiencing these problems for a total of 24 months. The landlord also did not do what it said it would do in its complaint responses, namely overseeing the outstanding works and make sure that these were completed within the timeframes that it had provided.
It is because of these failings that we have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 complaint response within an additional 10 working days, and its stage 2 complaint response within in an additional 20 working days. It says that it can obtain an extension of time by up to 10 working days to provide its complaint responses as long as this is agreed with the resident.
The landlord took a total of 30 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response. It did not acknowledge her complaint until 7 February 2024, over a month after the resident made her stage 1 complaint. It told her that it would provide its stage 1 complaint response by 21 February 2024. It then delayed providing its complaint response on 2 occasions.
The landlord acknowledged its failure in its delays in providing its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident an apology and £50 in compensation. This is reasonable redress in the circumstances, and it is acknowledged that the landlord took steps to make things right for the resident.
The landlord took 29 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. In its response, it acknowledged the delays and again offered an apology and £25 compensation to the resident. We consider this to be reasonable redress and an attempt by the landlord to make things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As set out above, issues were identified with the landlord not scheduling in works that had been raised by surveyors until almost 5 months later. Where possible, the landlord should attempt to schedule works at the point it first receives works schedules from its surveyors. Avoiding handovers between teams will minimise the risk of jobs ‘slipping through the net’ as they appear to have done in this case.

Communication

Landlords should aim to have open and clear communication with residents. This is not only to keep residents up to date on the progression of works, but also to manage their expectations. In this case, as set out above, communication was poor which added to the resident’s frustration.