Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202445554)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445554

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

9 September 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:
    1. the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and subsequent repairs.
    2. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident of a longstanding illness. The household includes 2 children.
  2. On 26 February 2024, the landlord logged a repair report for damp to the bedroom ceiling and issues with mould. The landlord completed a survey of the property on 1 March 2024 and raised repairs. This included replacing plaster in the toilet, bathroom and the bedroom ceiling, renewal of the bathroom fan, mould removal, loft insulation, and a drain survey.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 November 2024 about delays to the repairs, outstanding work and communication about appointments.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 December 2024. It acknowledged delays to completing the repairs and that it had repeatedly scheduled appointments without contacting the resident. The landlord said that following a further survey in December 2024, the source of the moisture was unclear and it had now decided to monitor this area to see if it would dry out without further intervention. It confirmed it had raised works to the chimney after further investigation and would replace the bath. It apologised and offered the resident £450 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 January 2025. She said the landlord had not responded to her request to escalate her complaint on 17 December 2024. The resident said the landlord had not completed all the necessary work, it booked a surveyor appointment without agreeing this with her, and she was concerned about the health risks from the mould.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 19 February 2025. It confirmed its decision to monitor the wall. The landlord said it had arranged a further mould treatment. It said it aimed to complete the chimney works by the end of April 2025 and would replace the bath on 21 February 2025. The landlord said it was unable to escalate the complaint on 17 December 2024 because the complaint was at stage 1. The landlord apologised for significant delays in completing repairs and poor communication about appointments and updates. It increased its offer of compensation. The final response states the offer was £750 but the breakdown totalled £850. This was broken down as £150 for repair delays, £200 for appointment service failures, £200 for poor communication, £150 for time and trouble, and £150 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord completed the bath repair on 21 February, a further inspection and mould treatment on 24 February, and chimney works on 30 May 2025.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord had not monitored the wall as stated or fully resolved the damp and mould following its visit on 24 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that she had experienced damp and mould since she moved into the property. The Ombudsman will usually not investigate complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising). This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports in 2024 which were addressed in the landlord’s final response on 19 February 2025.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident were not included in the complaint on 22 November 2024 or happened following the end of the complaints process. This includes damage to furniture and belongings and concerns about scaffolding during a repair. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to which the landlord provided its final response on 19 February 2025. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate these.
  3. The resident has complained that her situation has impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

The resident’s reports about damp and mould, and subsequent repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The landlord has a responsibility in the Decent Homes Standard to ensure its properties are free from hazards and risks and remain fit for human habitation. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard.
  2. The landlord logged a repair report on 26 February 2024 about a wet bedroom ceiling, mould, and issues with an external wall. The landlord appropriately inspected the property on 1 March 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will carry out any surveys or repairs in line with its repairs policy. Its repairs policy says where it needs an inspection to diagnose the work required, it will attend to this within 10 working days.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord raised repairs in response to this on 13 March 2024. None of these repairs were completed in line with its repairs policy which stated appointable repairs will normally be completed within 5 and 20 working days, and between 10 and 30 working days for major building repairs. It took the landlord almost 9 months to complete mould treatment, 6 months to complete the fan upgrade, over 5 months to complete the work to the drains, and 4 months to complete the loft insulation work.
  4. The guttering repair was not part of the recommended works from the survey in March 2024. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair on 15 April 2024, and it completed this on 17 June 2024. However, its stage 2 confirmed this was completed on 12 July 2024. This was a timeframe of 62 working days. This was again not in line with its repairs policy.
  5. It was not clear when the resident reported the issue with the bath. This was not included in the survey in March 2024. The landlord agreed to replace this at stage 1. It completed this on 21 February 2025 as stated in its final response.
  6. It was evident that initial delays to the internal plastering works was due to the landlord identifying that it needed to complete this work after external repairs. Its records show it updated the resident about this on 22 April 2024. However, it did not schedule this work until October 2024. This was despite completing external work to the gutter and drains by 21 August 2024. There was also no evidence of the landlord completing a mould treatment in the interim following a failed appointment on 3 May 2024. This did not demonstrate the landlord taking steps to resolve the damp and mould in a timely and effective way as stated in its damp and mould policy.
  7. The landlord did not complete the plastering work. A further survey in December 2024 recommended it monitor the area to see if it dried out or showed signs of rising damp. The landlord’s decision not to go ahead with the plastering work likely caused frustration to the resident. She had facilitated multiple failed repair appointments for this work. However, given the time that had passed from the initial survey it was appropriate for the landlord to complete another. The evidence from the time of the complaint shows the landlord following the recommendations of its most recent survey, and the outcome of its visits to the property.
  8. The survey in March 2024 recommended work to the chimney, although noted it was not currently causing issues. This was not part of the initial schedule of works. The landlord’s records show it raised a job to inspect this on 25 March 2024, after the resident followed it up. It did this inspection on 17 June 2024. The landlord confirmed at stage 2 that it had raised repairs. It completed this on 30 May 2025. This was 11 months after its inspection. The timescale here was excessive.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord identified the need for work to the chimney by an external contractor in June 2024. The reason for its delay in raising the repairs until after the resident’s complaint in November 2024 is unclear. It was evident that the landlord failed to retain an oversight of the repair until she followed up on this.
  10. Complex repairs and investigations may require additional time for the landlord to complete them. It was evident that follow on inspections and further works were identified following the initial survey. However, basic customer service requires landlords to keep in communication with residents and update them on the progress of repairs. The evidence shows the resident had to follow up with the landlord multiple times. The landlord did not keep the resident appropriately updated on the timetabling of works as stated in its damp and mould policy. Its communication about the repair work was poor.
  11. The landlord’s communication around repair appointments was also poor. The evidence shows the landlord arranging repair and inspection appointments without agreeing a suitable time with the resident. This included rearranging plastering works multiple times. This continued after the resident raised this with the landlord on 15 October 2024, and despite the resident providing the landlord with details about her contact preferences and availability. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says the landlord will agree a suitable appointment slot with the resident where work has been raised following an inspection. Given the high number of repair appointments the resident had facilitated, this likely caused her distress and inconvenience. As well as time and trouble to rearrange unsuitable appointments.
  12. In her complaintthe resident told the landlord she was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her children’s health. She said her daughter slept directly next to the damp. The landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The landlord’s records show that during a call with the resident on 22 November 2024, it asked the resident about household vulnerabilities in relation to the damp and mould. The answers recorded by the landlord stated asthma, a child in the bedroom, and a heart condition. The evidence shows the landlord prioritised the further inspection and mould treatment following this call, completing this on 29 November 2024. While this action was appropriate and allowed the landlord to act on the resident’s concerns about vulnerability, there was no evidence that it had assessed the risk of the damp and mould to the household before this.
  13. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. The landlord’s records show it was aware of health vulnerabilities and children in the household. There is no evidence that it considered this in the timeliness of its responses following its survey in March 2024. That was not in line with the basic practice recommended in the spotlight report.
  14. In its final response, the landlord said it would reattend to complete a further mould treatment. It also said it would continue to monitor the wall between the hallway and downstairs toilet and bathroom. The landlord attended on 24 February 2025 as promised to complete a further mould treatment and inspect the mould. The resident told us that the landlord had not provided an update after this visit or returned to monitor the wall. The landlord’s repair records showed the inspection on 24 February 2025 recommended a further surveyor inspection. The landlord informed the Service that this report had highlighted an issue it was already aware of. However, there was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident about this.
  15. It was not clear how the landlord intended to monitor the damp. The landlord’s final response indicated that it would revisit in the spring, however, there is no record of any further inspection or monitoring to date and the resident states the damp has not been resolved. The evidence shows the landlord failed to do what it said it would to fully put things right for the resident.This was not in line with its complaints policy which says it will track actions that it agrees as part of a complaints resolution and provide the resident with regular updates until the point that they are complete.
  16. In its final response, the landlord recognised its significant repair delays, poor communication in relation to appointments and updates, and the resident taking the time and trouble to chase repairs. It offered the resident £850 compensation. Its compensation policy says that in offering compensation it will consider the impact of the failure on the household, and the level of compensation awarded if the Ombudsman reviewed the case. The compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings of this scale and nature. However, given the further failings we have identified, the compensation only went part way to putting things right for the resident.
  17. Overall, the landlord recognised its delays and poor communication throughout the repair process. It attempted to put things right through an offer of compensation and plan of action. However, it failed to appropriately follow up on its promised actions and monitor the damp. It also failed to demonstrate it had initially taken the household vulnerabilities into consideration in the timeliness of completing work. As such, its remedy failed to fully resolve the issue for the resident. We have ordered a further amount of compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when a landlord’s offer of action and compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

 Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 November 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 December 2024. This was a timeframe of 20 working days. This did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days, or the Code.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord agreed with the resident to extend the timescale for the stage 1 response during a visit on 5 December 2024. However, there is no evidence of the landlord confirming this to the resident or providing her with a date of when she could expect a response. This was not in line with its complaints policy. This says if it cannot provide a response within 10 working days it will explain why and agree a date for the response. As a result, the resident took the time and trouble to follow up on this. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with the contact details for the Ombudsman when extending the complaint. This was not in line with the Code.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 December 2024. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had not been able to escalate the complaint on 17 December 2024 because it was still at stage 1. The landlord’s response was in line with its complaints policy. This says the process has 2 stages, and that if a resident wants a complaint to be reviewed at stage 2, they will need to contact it after receiving the stage 1 outcome. The resident had not yet received the stage 1 response and therefore it was not possible for the landlord to review its response. However, there was no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s escalation to confirm this process. As such, the resident was unsure if her complaint had been escalated or not.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 2 January 2025. It provided its final response on 19 February 2025. This was 30 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint on 8 January 2025. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 January 2025 and agreed an extension to the complaint response and provided a reason. The landlord initially requested a 20-working day extension. It reduced this to 10 working days at the request of the resident. This demonstrated it agreeing the extension with the resident in line with its policy.
  5. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not contacted the resident as part of the stage 1 complaint investigation. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will be proactive and consider what the resident is seeking as an outcome. There was no evidence of the landlord discussing the complaint with the resident at stage 1 after logging the complaint.
  6. In summary, the landlord’s communication about the extension at stage 1 was poor and not in line with its policy or the code. It acted in line with its policy when it did not escalate the resident’s complaint on 17 December 2024. The landlord’s final response acknowledged it failed to contact the resident as part of the stage 1 investigation. However, it failed to identify its poor communication about the stage 1 extension, or her initial escalation request. As such its apology did not fully remedy its complaint handling. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

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 damp and mould and subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. apologise to the resident for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £200 for the further failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and subsequent repairs. This is in addition to the £850 it offered during the complaints process.
    3. pay the resident compensation of £50 for the failure in its complaint handling.
    4. complete an inspection to monitor the damp and mould. The landlord is to provide the resident with the outcome of the inspection and an action plan with timeframes for any repairs identified.
    5. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Service.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.