Southern Housing (202325053)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the 4 bedroom house since 2010. She lives there with her adult daughter, who has down’s syndrome. She has reported leaks from the roof since 2020 which have damaged a bedroom ceiling and decorations. Between 2022 and 2023, the landlord inspected the roof and agreed repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a leaking roof.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a leaking roof and reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to a leaking roof

4. The landlord accepted its failures early in the timeline in its stage 2 response. It was resolution focused and took reasonable steps to identify the cause of the leaks and propose roof repairs.
5. The landlord did not record an agreed action plan with the resident in 2024. When its contractor attended in February 2024 and conducted some temporary repairs to the roof, it made further recommendations to the landlord. The temporary repairs were ineffective in February and May 2024. There were further delays completing a liquid repair to the roof until October 2024.

Reports of damp and mould

6. The resident reported damp and mould in July 2022 and the landlord did not complete any repair until May 2024. During this period, the resident did not have full use of her daughter’s bedroom.
7. There were considerable delays throughout the timeline where the landlord did not inspect or fully consider the impact on the resident.
8. The landlord recognised that it had not followed through with the recommendations made in its inspections when it issued its complaint responses in 2023. However, it continued to do so and allowed additional delays in 2024.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord delayed issuing its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2. However, it recognised the failings, appropriately apologised, and made a reasonable offer of compensation 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.

10. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for repairs to the roof. Neither party disputed the duration the repairs were ongoing. The records show the resident reporting leaks from the roof and blocked gutters from 2020 onwards. The landlord conducted some associated repairs in 2020 and 2021 but failed to progress repairs between April 2022 and March 2023.
11. We have investigated in detail from April 2022 onwards as this was 12 months prior to the complaint and we have sufficient evidence to do so. We have gone beyond the final complaint response to October 2024 as this is when the landlord completed repairs to the roof (which it said it would complete as part of its efforts to put things right in its stage 2 complaint response).
12. In its stage 1 response in March 2023, the landlord appropriately apologised for its failure to progress the repairs from April 2022 onwards. Its response was resolution focused and gave the resident an action plan that it would put up scaffolding, inspect, test for asbestos internally and raise necessary works. It was reasonable to offer to replace the resident’s damaged carpet and the £705 compensation reflected there were unreasonable delays.
13. The landlord followed through with some of its commitments to progress the external repairs by erecting the scaffolding in March 2023. However, there were further delays completing any roofing repairs between April and June 2023. During this period, the resident sought updates from the landlord, causing her further time and trouble.
14. The landlord responded to the resident each time, apologised, and continued to chase the contractors. Its records show that it was progressing the repairs with its contractor who were having problems getting quotes to repair the roof. The contractor provided a quote to complete the repairs on 2 June 2023, which was around 6 weeks after it inspected the roof on 27 April 2023. The landlord took reasonable steps to progress the repairs at this time.
15. It is unclear when any roof repairs were done at this time, or what they included. From the emails sent between the landlord and resident, it seems the contractor completed some repairs between 30 June and 5 July 2023. The resident asked for the scaffold to be removed in June 2023 as she said the leak had stopped. In its communication with the resident, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays and the stress this caused her.
16. In her request to escalate her complaint on 27 October 2023, the resident said the failures to repair the roof left her in tears. She assumed the work was complete in July, but shortly after the landlord removed the scaffold, the roof began to leak again. Despite the issues raised by the resident in her complaint, the landlord did not schedule a further inspection of the roof in 2023. This was a serious failure and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
17. In its stage 2 response in December 2023, the landlord appropriately accepted that it had not followed through with all its findings at stage 1. It addressed its failure take any action following inspections and it had repeatedly raised repairs for the gutters in July and December 2023. It appropriately agreed to conduct a further roof inspection with its contractor on 18 January 2024. It said that it would develop a repair plan for completion by 26 January 2024 with additional communal repairs by 2 February 2024. It was reasonable to assign the resident a single point of contact to oversee the repairs. This was a fair approach and demonstrated the landlord’s intentions to put things right.
18. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable. In total, it offered £1,155 compensation for repairs, which comprised of:
    1. £1,000 for inconvenience, time, and trouble.
    2. £50 for not raising works following visit in July 2023 (damp).
    3. £60 for failure to repair offered at stage 1.
    4. £45 for service failure offered at stage 1.
19. The landlord did not separate its compensation offer for inconvenience, time, and trouble between the repairs to the roof and the damp and mould. We have split the amount offered for inconvenience, time, and trouble in two between each of the repairs when considering if this offer was reasonable. This makes total compensation of £605 offered for the roof repairs and £550 for the damp and mould. When compared to our Guidance on Remedies, the offer for repairs to a leaking roof reflects a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord acknowledged its failure and attempted to put things right.
20. Had the landlord followed through with its commitments at stage 2, agreed an action plan with the resident, and repaired the roof, we would likely have found reasonable redress. However, in February 2024 the landlord’s contractor made temporary repairs and recommended the landlord replace the roof or encapsulate it in liquid. The resident said the roof was still leaking in March 2024, despite the temporary repairs. The landlord did not learn from its earlier failures and continued ineffective temporary repairs in April 2024.
21. The landlord did not follow through with the recommendations made by the contractor to encapsulate the roof or schedule a replacement until October 2024. This was around 8 months after the contractor made the recommendation to the landlord. This was an unreasonable delay and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
22. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof. We have considered the additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident between December 2023 and October 2024. The landlord had an opportunity to reassess its handling of the repair in September 2024 when it increased its offer of compensation by £100.
23. Although it made efforts to complete temporary repairs which did mitigate the impact on the resident, its offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment caused. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 compensation. This makes the total compensation £1,005 towards its failures handling repairs to the roof. This reflects our Guidance on Remedies where there has been a failure which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

24. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the property in repair. It must look at the property condition using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards but is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
25. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord must conduct additional monitoring of a property where it has identified potential hazards. There was an increased risk of harm as damp and mould were present in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. She told the landlord her daughter was vulnerable and that she was forced to move her out of the room because of the mould present.
26. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that it will inspect a property within 10 working days of a report. It should communicate and schedule any initial temporary remedial works with the resident at the point of inspection. It aims to complete any necessary works within 6 weeks of the initial report.
27. The records show the resident first reported damp and damaged plaster on the bedroom ceiling on 12 July 2022. The landlord booked an inspection for 7 September 2022, which was 41 working days later and more than 3 weeks beyond its target. It closed the job on 7 September 2022 when no one was at home during the visit. It did not record any additional follow up until December 2022 when the resident says the landlord did not attend. The landlord failed to inspect the property or schedule any necessary works to mitigate the impact on the resident.
28. In her complaint on 1 February 2023, the resident said the ceiling was black with mould and had a hole in it. She was worried about the impact on her daughter. There was no record available to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted any inspection inside the property until after it issued its stage 1 response. It did not show that it was considering any means to reduce the impact on the resident and her daughter.
29. The landlord inspected the property on 19 July 2023, which was around 4 months after its stage 1 response. This was considerably outside the 10 working day timescales set out in its procedure. This was an unreasonable delay and likely contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
30. The landlord’s record of the inspection on 19 July 2023 show mould and a hole in the bedroom ceiling. The inspector noted that it needed to conduct an asbestos survey, provide more loft insulation, and repair the ceiling. It did not progress these works following the inspection which caused the resident additional time and trouble.
31. In its stage 2 response in December 2023, the landlord appropriately accepted that it had not followed through with all its findings at stage 1. It recognised that it did not progress repairs following its inspection for damp and mould. It planned further repairs once it had completed an asbestos check but recognised that it should have progressed this after its July 2023 inspection. It said it would conduct asbestos checks on the ceiling on 18 January 2024 and a joint inspection of the property on the same day. It advised it would develop an action plan for all repairs by 26 January 2024. This approach was resolution focused and, if pursued fully, would have been a reasonable way to put things right for the resident.
32. However, the landlord did not attend to repair the bedroom ceiling until 31 May 2024. This was an unreasonable delay of around 5 months after its stage 2 response. During this visit, the landlord repaired the ceiling and treated the mould which improved the condition of the bedroom substantially. However, when it returned on 5 July 2024, it was unable to complete the decoration as the roof was still leaking. There was no record to show that it returned after this date and completed the decoration.
33. The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould. In its December 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it had failed to follow through with recommendations following its inspections. It was reasonable to establish an action plan to complete the internal repairs and its offer of £550 is comparable to a failure that has adversely affected the resident. It followed through with its commitments to establish a plan to repair the ceiling and decorate.
34. However, there was considerable drift throughout in both conducting inspections and following up works afterwards. There is no record to show that the landlord took reasonable action to mitigate the impact on the resident early in the timeline. She said she was unable to have full use of the bedroom as a result. It did not fully account for the resident’s vulnerabilities and there was no record of any assessment of those risks. It did not consider this in its complaint responses. There was a further unacceptable delay of around 5 months in starting works to the ceiling after it issued its stage 2 response.
35. In deciding an appropriate level of redress, we have considered the level of rent, the landlord’s failures, and the inconvenience caused. The property is a 4 bed house and the resident lived there with her daughter. The bedroom most affected was her daughter’s. While the room was not entirely out of use, the resident did not have full enjoyment. Therefore, we have ordered increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the evidence we have seen. Our calculation has considered compensation to reflect loss of full use of the room, along with the resulting distress and inconvenience.
36. We have considered the period 12 July 2022 to 31 May 2024 in our calculation. This additional compensation is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation for that period. It is made up of:
    1. £980 which is around 10% of the rent for the period.
    2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

37. The landlord’s complaint handling policy provides timescales for its complaint responses. It will issue a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledging a complaint. The landlord did not issue its responses within the timescales set out in its policy at either stage.
38. The resident complained on 1 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 February 2023 and issued its stage 1 response 16 working days later (on 3 March 2023). Although there was a delay in its response, the landlord appropriately sought an extension on 28 February 2023. It also fairly assessed its own handling of the complaint and gave the resident £15 compensation for the delay. Its response was reasonable and its offer of compensation put things right for the resident.
39. The resident disagreed with the amount of compensation offered and asked the landlord to review this offer in emails on 4 and 13 March 2023. The landlord could have escalated the complaint to stage 2 but instead offered to review the compensation offer once it had completed repairs. This was not an unreasonable approach but it was a missed opportunity to escalate her complaint and provide a final response sooner.
40. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 18 May 2023 when she sought updates and wanted more compensation from the landlord. The landlord replied, agreed to chase repairs, and asked her what amount of compensation she sought. Again, the approach was not entirely unreasonable but was a further missed opportunity to escalate her complaint and issue a final response.
41. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 21 October and 27 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged her request on 27 October 2023 and issued its response 43 working days later (on 29 December 2023). The records show the resident seeking updates on her complaint on 22 November 2023. She took additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint because of its delay in responding.
42. The landlord did not fully acknowledge its delays in its stage 2 response as it did not address the resident’s emails from March and May 2023. However, it appropriately apologised for the later delays and made an additional offer of £250 compensation for the complaint handling. This brought the total to £265 which was reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for failings that had an adverse impact on a resident. It broadly recognised its failings and took action to put things right for the resident.

Learning

Repairs involving hazards

43. The landlord should have better oversight of repairs that include possible hazards as set out in the HHSRS. In this case, the resident was vulnerable and reported problems with damp and mould for a substantial period. Had the landlord used its systems to monitor the progress of the repairs, it could have resolved the matter sooner and prevented the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord’s records show that it sent emails to the contractor and subcontractors to progress the repairs to the roof. However, it is unclear when the contractor attended or completed the repairs. For instance, it is only from the resident’s emails that we found that roofing work was done some time around 30 June 2023. It is important that the landlord maintains clear and accurate records to aid its service delivery and have proper oversight of its repairs. Its lack of clear records may have contributed to the overall delays in this case.

Communication

45. Outside of the repairs progress, the landlord’s communication with the resident was broadly reasonable. It provided timely responses to her emails and acknowledged where it had failed.