Southern Housing (202513410)

Background

1. The resident is a joint tenant. She shares the property with her partner and 4 children. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident reports that 5 members of the family suffer from respiratory issues. The landlord responded to reports of damp and mould in September 2024. The complaint was brought through the complaint procedure and to us by a representative. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and her representative as “the resident.”

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Damage to her property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of property damage.
6. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified complaint handling failures.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord identified delays when it responded to reports of mould in the property. It repaired the issues, apologised, and made an offer of redress which was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance.
8. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for property damage and made a reasonable offer to remove bulky items.
9. The landlord identified complaint handling failings, apologised, and offered redress which was reasonable considering the failings.

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 looked at and why

10. The resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of damp and mould has affected her health and the health of her household. She also reported a breakdown in her marital relations because of the issues. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident
11. The resident complained that the damp and mould issues had been present since 2022. The evidence indicates she raised a previous complaint but it was not progressed through the full complaints procedure. We encourage 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. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 27 September 2024 onwards. This is when the landlord responded to reports of damp and mould which subsequently gave rise to the complaint.

What we have looked at and why

12. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. In its complaint response it apologised for these failings and offered compensation. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. On 30 September 2024, the landlord surveyed the residents property for damp and mould. It noted that the property was habitable with mild black spot mould on some window surrounds. It noted that the resident had cleaned the mould so it had not amplified over time. It concluded that mould was caused by failed mechanical extraction. The surveyor recommended upgrading 2 extractor fans, providing venting for the tumble dryer, mould washes to the window reveals, clear gutters, repair windows, replace 1 window, and test and service all trickle vents. It completed the recommended works between the 4 October 2024 and 22 October 2024. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
14. On 16 January 2025, through her complaint, the resident reported widespread black mould throughout the property. In response the landlord carried out a further survey of the property on 30 January 2025. It found a marked improvement since the last survey. It noted some mild black mould in a few locations of the property and found that the new extractor fans needed to be recalled and an issue with the tumble drier vent. It raised work orders for mould washes to the affected areas and further work to the extractor fans and tumble drier vent. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of ongoing mould after the repairs.
15. The contractors records show that it called the resident 3 times between the 4 February 2025 and 25 February 2025 and left a message to arrange the works. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 February 2025 who apologised for not taking the calls but said she could take a call that day.
16. On 13 March 2025, the resident raised an issue about the scope of the works with the landlord. She emailed further images of mould and said that she felt that the utility room and a bedroom should be included in the works. This was not resolved until 24 working days later on 16 April 2025 when the landlord authorised the contractor to complete mould washes to all affected areas. This was a failing.
17. The landlord completed the works on 7 May 2025. This was 67 working days after the survey. It is recognised that in this timeframe that there were delays outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord’s records show that the contractor had difficulty contacting the resident initially and there was a brief period when the resident was away. There was a delay in resolving a dispute over the scope of the works which led to the resident chasing repairs and issues with repeat visits from the contractor. The landlord recognised and apologised for these service failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered £105 compromising:
    1. £60 for failure to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale.
    2. £15 for the repeat visits.
    3. £15 for failing to follow its repairs process.
    4. £15 for the resident having to chase responses.
18. This was a reasonable offer of redress within the scope of the landlord’s compensation policy and our Guidance on Remedies.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reviewed the impact that the delay in completing the repairs had on the resident and her household. It acknowledged the distress caused as the resident had a newborn baby and her daughter was studying for her GCSE’s during the time of the repair. To recognise the impact, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused, the landlord offered compensation of £600. This offer was reasonable and in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
20. As part of its stage 2 complaint resolution, the landlord offered to redecorate a bedroom. When the resident brought her complaint to us, she said that this remained outstanding and an extractor fan was not working. The evidence provided shows that the landlord tracked this action and contacted the resident on 16 July 2025 who confirmed that the works were not complete. It offered a post inspection on 1 September 2025 and subsequently booked a post inspection on 9 October 2025.
21. During this delay period no significant detriment was seen to have been caused as remedial actions remained actively in process. The outcome of this inspection has not been made available to us. We cannot decide on this as this action was outstanding when the complaint was brought to us. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome, she has the option to raise a further complaint.

22. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
23. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance policy for items damaged by mould. It further signposted her to its own liability insurance should she feel the landlord was liable for the damages.
24. The landlord’s response and actions were reasonable. Its compensation policy at section 5.1 says that it will not pay compensation for damage to belongings. However, it gave the resident the opportunity to claim via the landlord’s own insurance if she considered the landlord was responsible for damage to her property.
25. In its stage 2 complaint response, it made a discretionary offer of £40 to cover the cost of the council removing bulky items to assist the resident in removing some damaged items from her home. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
27. The evidence indicates that the landlord was attending to the substantive issue of the complaint before issuing its complaint responses. It is not realistic for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. In its complaint response, the landlord should put right the issues identified up until that point and commit to resolving the outstanding issues within a reasonable timescale and set out clearly to the resident how it plans to do so.
28. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 23 working days beyond the timescales and its stage 2 complaint response 24 working days beyond the timescales. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failing. The landlord recognised these failings, apologised, and offered £50. It is also considered that the landlord was in contact with the resident throughout and requested extensions for its complaint responses. We find that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
29. It is positive that the landlord tracked its agreed action of redecorating the resident’s bedroom. When evidence was provided to us, it had arranged a post inspection to confirm if works had been carried out as agreed.

Learning

Complaint handling

30. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was significantly improved from its stage 1 complaint response. It carried out a thorough investigation of its repair responses and its complaint handling and identified issues with both. It apologised for its failings, offered redress, which was appropriate, and committed to learning from the complaint. This was a good example of the landlord effectively using the latter stage of its complaint handling procedure to reconsider its failings and put things right for the resident.