Southern Housing (202439743)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439743

Southern Housing

21 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about having to temporarily decant.
2. Enquiries about a mutual exchange.
3. Concerns about its handling of repairs including damp and mould.
4. Request for a management move.

Background.

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She succeeded the tenancy in January 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has vulnerabilities registered for the resident which include physical and mental health conditions.
On 6 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive officer. In summary she said she was dissatisfied because:
1. She had arranged a mutual exchange with someone, but she had been told that it would not be approved because the property was uninhabitable.
2. She considered that the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs caused her to lose a mutual exchange opportunity.
On 3 October 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary it said:
1. In respect of a mutual exchange, the resident did have a right to do this. The essential works needed to begin. If the resident was in the process of an exchange, it could conditionally approve under the condition that all works were completed before moving day. If the resident required the forms to apply it would send an application form.
2. In order to conduct the repairs, it needed to decant the resident. It appreciated that this was not ideal. It would do as much as it could to ensure that the move was seamless.
3. In respect of a management move, it was aware that the resident had applied for a transfer through the local authority. It could consider a management move in limited circumstances. It enclosed a leaflet. It said if any of the circumstances listed on the leaflet applied then the resident should contact the relevant team.
On 15 October 2024, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In summary she said:
1. The disrepair and damp and mould in the property had impacted her physical and mental health.
2. Although the leak had been fixed there was damp and mould as a result.
3. Timbers made rotten by the leaks had caused structural movement resulting in cracks in walls and ceilings throughout the property. The doors did not close creating draughts and cold.
4. The landlord’s staff had told her the property was uninhabitable.
5. The roof ridges needed repointing, a down pipe was broken, flooring had been damaged by leaks and the external vents were old.
6. She did not agree that she should not qualify for rehousing under the landlord’s moving options policy. She was experiencing ASB because she lived in a hostile neighbourhood and did not feel secure. She explained some incidents of ASB from various neighbours which included:
  1. Neighbours shouting and screaming and abusing her.
  2. Drug dealing
  3. Having to keep windows and doors shut to avoid confrontation from a neighbour.
  4. Noise nuisance.
7. She also considered that she had grounds to move because of medical needs.
On 31 October 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary it said:
1. In respect of a management move, it acknowledged that the resident wanted a management move based on the medical information and concerns raised about anti-social behaviour (ASB). It said it could not investigate the handling of the ASB as this had not been raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint. If the resident had evidence that matched its criteria, then it would consider her application.
2. It needed to decant the resident as explained in its stage 1 to enable it to complete the repairs. It would support the resident through the decant to ensure minimum disruption is caused.
3. It was unable to approve a mutual exchange until it had completed the repairs in the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said that she could not decant temporarily and move back in because of her medical conditions. She could not cope with stress. She said her respiratory conditions had been made worse by the cold, damp and mould conditions of her home.
The resident’s application for a management move was accepted in March 2025. The resident is currently waiting to be allocated a property. In April 2025, the resident informed this Service that the landlord is in the process of visiting her to assess the property to see if there are any repairs that it can complete while she is in the property. She is waiting for a further update in respect of this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

This Service has already investigated the landlord’s handling of the various repairs. The investigation confirmed that the landlord had decided to decant the resident in July 2024 for a month. The landlord had described the works required as major repairs to water damaged ceilings, roof and other internal repairs. The resident had also changed her mind at this point as she wished to leave the property permanently rather than temporarily decant.
At the point the investigation concluded the landlord was incorporating the resident’s mutual exchange intentions into its repairs planning and decant. To avoid any confusion or overlap this investigation will consider the repair issues including the damp and mould from August 2024 onwards. Reference may still however be made to earlier events/repairs for context.
It is also acknowledged that the resident has raised several complaints after the stage 2 complaint. One of the complaints included the resident’s concerns about remaining in the property with the repairs. The landlord agreed to assess the repairs and whether it could do some while she remained in the property within its response. The complaints have also been escalated to this Service. For clarity and to avoid confusion this Service will be considering the landlord’s actions up until the stage 2 complaint which was issued on 31 October 2024. Reference may be made to events which took place after for context.
If such a new complaint about the repairs is investigated by the Ombudsman, this investigation’s conclusions will be taken into consideration in any new investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to temporarily decant.

The landlord’s temporary move procedure states that the process will usually be triggered by a resident notifying it of a severe repair issue. A surveyor would attend and identify whether a temporary decant was appropriate. It will always consider if it can do the works without the resident having to move out and it will take their opinion and support needs into consideration. It may still move the resident even if they do not want to if it considers its too dangerous or disruptive for them to remain in the property.
It states it will inform the resident by telephone and will only visit in exceptional circumstances. It will ensure that it explains the following to the resident:
1. Explain why it needs them to move out temporarily.
2. Ask them about their accommodation needs and support needs.
3. Agree how it will contact them and how often.
4. Advise them some costs will be covered by a disturbance payment. It will give tenants its temporary moves frequently asked questions leaflet.
5. It will only pay for expenses that are unavoidable and agreed in advance.
6. It will pay contractors and suppliers directly where possible.
The resident informed the landlord that she would not move out temporarily. She said she required a permanent move. It is unclear when she first raised her concerns about moving temporarily as the landlord’s records are not clear. It is acknowledged that the initial delays were because the resident required 2 months to prepare. The position then changed as she wanted the landlord to incorporate a mutual exchange alongside the decant so she did not have to return. The landlord informed this Service that the mutual exchange did not go ahead but the records do not show what happened.
The landlord then said in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had told it that she had concerns about the decant. She said she had physical and mental health conditions and did not consider she had the strength to cope with a decant out of her current home and then back again.
The landlord had already set out its position relative to the reasons a decant was necessary within its stage 1 response. This was in accordance with its temporary move procedure and appropriate.
At stage 2 the landlord offered reassurance that it would support the resident through the process to ensure minimum disruption. While this was appropriate it failed to consider whether it had adequately communicated its decant procedure to the resident.
At the point the complaint was raised the landlord could have shown more curiosity into what her concerns were to see if they could be resolved. The landlord was still required to meet its repairing obligations and ensure the resident did not continue to live in unsatisfactory conditions indefinitely. It would have assisted matters if the landlord had explained how it intended to manage the situation where the resident did not agree to a temporary decant.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord are poor. There are no records to show what was discussed with the resident about the decant. The landlord told this Service that it had called the resident on 29 July 2024. During the conversation it said it advised her that it would source an apartment, arrange removals and store belongings. Its temporary move procedure is quite clear about what the landlord needs to discuss with the resident. The records should therefore provide that level of detail to show that it did. That it has not in this case is a failing.
It would be reasonable to expect a landlord to have letters, file notes and other documents showing the conversations it had about the decant. There are a lot of matters to consider for both the landlord and the resident when a decant is required. For clarity and to manage expectations the landlord could have also followed up its conversations with the resident in writing. This would have evidenced that it had managed the resident’s expectations and tried to avoid any confusion. It would have also evidenced that it had given the resident an opportunity to raise any concerns that she may have had in response.
The lack of records showing how it communicated with the resident means that this service cannot fully assess how the landlord responded. This is a failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue her matter further.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
In summary this Service considers the above failings amount to a service failure. The landlord’s records fail to show that it had adequately communicated with the resident. This means that it failed to show that it had managed her expectations and adequately addressed all of her concerns relating to the decant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about a mutual exchange.

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that to exchange the resident must be keeping to the terms of the tenancy agreement. It states that it may not be able to agree an exchange because of legal grounds for refusal. It would let residents know if this applied. It would notify all parties applying for an exchange of its decision within 42 days from when it receives the full application including the correct supporting documentation. An appeal process is then available if the applicant disagrees with the decision. This should be submitted within 14 days of the decision.
The records provided by the landlord are not clear. The landlord advised this Service that no formal applications had been made to mutually exchange. The records do show that the landlord said it had received an application in June 2024 from a person who wished to exchange into its property. There are no further records however to show whether this application was formally accepted or whether it progressed.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The lack of records in this case have hindered this Service’s ability to assess the landlord’s handing of the matter.
In our earlier investigation this Service had concluded that the landlord was trying to facilitate a 4-way mutual exchange for the resident. The records show that on 29 July 2024 the landlord was going to assess the proposal and update the resident. The records do not show that it did. The resident and the landlord mention a discussion about a mutual exchange which took place on the phone on 9 August 2024. However, there are no records to show what was discussed. This highlights further poor record keeping. There are no records to show what was discussed, how far it progressed and why it did not proceed.
The landlord failed to explain how it had handled the mutual exchange enquiries within its stage 1 complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right. The landlord did however explain that works would need to be completed before a mutual exchange could go ahead. It also said that it could conditionally approve the exchange on that basis. It made it clear that the disrepair needed to be resolved but that it was open to work with her to facilitate a mutual exchange if possible.
The records show that the resident raised a further enquiry about a possible mutual exchange just before the stage 2 complaint was issued. The landlord responded and explained its position regarding adaptations to its properties. There are no further records after this that show the matter was pursued any further.
The landlord then reiterated its comments made in its stage 1 response within its stage 2 response. This was reasonable. It also ensured that the resident was aware that this option was still open to her, but that the repairs would need to be completed first.
In summary the landlord’s record keeping did fall short. This meant that this Service could not fully assess its handling of the resident’s enquiries. In addition to the record keeping failures the landlord has not evidenced that it handled the mutual exchange enquires in accordance with its procedure. It failed to show that it confirmed its position on the 4-way mutual exchange enquiry. This failing would have caused the resident time and effort pursuing her complaint further and amounts to a service failure. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its record keeping to ensure it has adequate procedures and systems in place to avoid this happening again.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs including damp and mould.

The landlord’s damp and mould standard operating procedure states when it receives a report of damp and mould it will:
1. Contact the resident the same day or the next working day to discuss the concerns identify the case handler and schedule an inspection.
2. In all instances an inspection of the property should be undertaken within 10 working days.
3. The case handler in consultation with the surveying manager should form and implement an action plan for resolution.
This Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. It also states that residents living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, which include asthma.
Our previous investigation assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs, including damp and mould. In July 2024 it put together a schedule of works and determined that a decant was appropriate to enable it to complete the repairs. The landlord has been unable to complete the repairs because the resident did not want to decant.
The landlord had also completed a damp survey earlier in March 2024. The survey recorded high damp readings in the property. The landlord’s schedule of works included mould washes in the kitchen, living room and bathroom. The resident then said that the damp and mould was impacting her physical and mental health when she raised her stage 2 complaint in October 2024.
At this point, the landlord should have considered what action it could take in the short term to reduce the impact on the resident. For example, it could have considered whether some repairs and/or mould washes could have been completed while the resident was still in the property. That it did not was a failing and did not demonstrate the proactive responses highlighted in its own procedure and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
An order has therefore been made to ensure that the repairs and the impact of the damp and mould is now considered. The resident must be advised of what action the landlord is or is not going to take and why.
In summary the landlord’s failings above amount to service failure. The landlord was facing difficulty because the resident did not want to temporarily decant. It was also trying to work with the resident to find a solution by way of mutual exchange. However, it should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the repairs and the damp and mould and whether it needed to take any action. The resident was vulnerable, and the landlord knew this. She had raised concerns, but the landlord failed to show that it had listened to them.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

It is unknown when the resident first requested a management move. The records indicate that it was at the initial complaint stage. Prior to this the resident had been pursuing a mutual exchange.
The landlord responded in its stage 1 complaint. It sent the resident the relevant information pack about the circumstances when a management move would apply. It asked the resident to make contact if she considered she was eligible. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
At stage 2 the resident said she felt that her circumstances met the requirement for a management move. In response the landlord invited her to provide the evidence in support. This was also appropriate. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
It is acknowledged that after the stage 2 complaint response the landlord took the matter to its housing panel. The resident has complained that there were delays, and this has been raised under a separate complaint so will not be considered as part of this investigation.
The landlord did however approve the resident’s application in March 2025. It sent a letter to the resident which set out the next steps. When this Service spoke to the resident, she was not clear what was happening in respect of her move. The landlord may wish to discuss this with the resident again to ensure she understands.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to temporarily decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that damp and mould were present.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Orders.

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £225 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to temporarily decant.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
  3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that damp and mould were present.
Within 8 weeks the landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the repairs and the damp and mould. The landlord must then write to the resident to set out what action it will or will not take and why. The landlord should also explain the resident’s options in respect of moving and how it proposes to complete the repairs. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to review the failings identified to prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
2. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
3. The landlord should share the outcome of its review with this Service, also within 8 weeks.