Southern Housing (202302270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302270

Southern Housing

14 April 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 reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy that began on 8 July 2020 and ended on 31 March 2024. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette, which the resident shared with her children. The landlord’s records show that 1 of the resident’s children has severe asthma. The landlord is a housing association.
On 10 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of damp and mould at the property.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. It listed the resident’s previous reports of damp and mould and the mould washes that had been carried out. It said it had installed dehumidifiers at the property and works were scheduled to start on 10 July 2023. The landlord awarded £222 compensation and £172 towards the cost of running the dehumidifiers.
On 2 August 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. It restated the actions it had taken previously. It said a survey was carried out on 10 July 2023, but the works were delayed as the resident had asked to be decanted. It said the works were due to start on 20 November 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £883 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 2 October 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The evidence shows the resident reported damp and mould in December 2020 and in November 2021. The landlord carried out a mould wash after each report.
In January 2022 the landlord raised a job for a mould wash and an inspection of the ventilation, as the mould had returned. The evidence shows an inspection took place, but the date is unclear, and the landlord has not provided an inspection report.
On 19 December 2022 the resident reported that works at the property remained outstanding. The landlord then arranged for a further mould wash to be completed.
On 10 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould. The resident said she was pregnant and had a child with severe asthma. She said the damp and mould was severe. She said the landlord visited the property over 12 months ago and had not communicated the results of that visit.
The landlord’s ‘damp and mould/repairs and serious health conditions standard operating procedure’ sets out what it will do when it receives a report of issues that may have an adverse health impact. The operating procedure states that on receipt of a report the landlord will:
1. Contact the resident the same day, or the next working day.
2. Carry out an inspection of the property within 10 working days.
3. Communicate any initial remedial works to the resident at the time of the inspection.
4. Gather details from the resident of any health issues.
5. Where applicable, liaise internally to decide if temporary alternative accommodation was required.
6. Formulate and implement an action plan.
7. Aim to complete all works within 6 weeks and escalate the case if not.
The landlord has not provided repair records for the property. It is essential that a landlord have complete and accurate records to enable it to fulfil its repair obligations and to demonstrate that it has done so. It is unreasonable that the landlord has not provided these records to this investigation.
The evidence shows when the resident contacted the landlord on 10 February 2023, she said she was pregnant and had a child with severe asthma. Given the resident’s circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have handled the resident’s case under its ‘damp and mould/repairs and serious health conditions standard operating procedure’. There is no evidence the landlord followed the procedure or considered if it were necessary to do so.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord serviced the ventilation system at the property.
On 17 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, and it told her it planned to attend that afternoon. The resident asked if she would be decanted during the works. She also told the landlord she intended to ‘live stream’ the visit on social media. When the contractor attended, he refused to be recorded and left the property.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord drafted a letter to the resident about her plan to ‘live stream’ the visit. It is unclear if the landlord sent the letter to the resident.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord installed 2 dehumidifiers at the property.
The evidence shows multiple internal landlord emails sent in the weeks thereafter that sought to clarify the outcome of a previous inspection, the scope of works required and whether a decant was needed.
The landlord collected the dehumidifiers from the property on 14 June 2023.
On 10 July 2023 a surveyor attended the property. The landlord has not provided a report from the visit.
An internal landlord email sent on 20 July 2023 said the view to date was that a decant was not required. The emails said the landlord should “push” for access to complete the works.
On 21 July 2023 the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She asked for the scope of the proposed works and said she had been told she would need to be decanted. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with the scope of works at this time.
An internal landlord emails sent on 24 July 2023 said the resident had asked for an assurance that the products the landlord intended to use in the property would not aggravate her child’s asthma. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s query.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 August 2023. It said the resident first reported damp and mould on 19 December 2022. It listed the resident’s subsequent reports and how it had responded to them. It said further works were booked for 10 July 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for its lack of communication and awarded £372 compensation. This was made up of £200 for the inconvenience caused to the resident and £172 for the 43 days the resident had dehumidifiers in her property.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay £2 for each day a dehumidifier is in a property.
On 9 November 2023 the landlord visited the property and produced a specification of works. The next day, on 10 November 2023, the landlord agreed with the resident that the works would start on 20 November 2023.
An internal landlord email sent on 15 November 2023 confirmed the resident did not need to be decanted. It is unclear from the evidence when and how this was communicated to the resident.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. It said it had provided the scope of works to the resident separately and would ensure these were completed. It upheld the resident’s complaint andincreased the compensation to £570. It revised the payment for the time the dehumidifiers were in the property to £188, to reflectthey were there for 47 days.
A landlord email sent on 30 November 2023 said the resident had refused to allow access for the works.
An internal landlord email sent on 16 January 2024 said it “completely understood” the resident’s frustration that the issue remained unresolved and that it would prepare an action plan that would be shared with the resident.
The landlord has told us the resident’s tenancy ended on 31 March 2024. It said the works were not completed before the resident left the property as it was unable to gain access. There is no evidence the action plan was shared with the resident prior to her leaving the property.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and/or compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor, and the service it provided to the resident was not good enough. The landlord awarded £560 compensation for repair delays, service failures and inconvenience. This is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for cases which adversely affected the resident.
However, the landlord placed the reason on the delay to works starting in July 2023 upon the resident. It said this was because she had requested a decant. The landlord’s rationale was unreasonable. This is because the resident was entitled to enquire about a decant. The landlord should have been able to quickly react to the resident’s enquiry, set out its position and re-assure the resident during the process.
Instead, the landlord’s recordkeeping was inadequate. It did not have records of an earlier survey, and it was unclear about whether a decant was necessary. The evidence shows the landlord decided a decant was unnecessary but there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident. The landlord’s proposed solution was to “push for access”. However, there is no evidence it took these limited steps to move the repairs forward.
Furthermore, there was no evidence the landlord considered using its ‘damp and mould and serious health conditions standard operating procedure’. This was despite the resident being pregnant and having an asthmatic child. Had the landlord followed the procedure it would have been required to complete the assessment and works within the timeframes specified. The landlord awarded £560 compensation, however, this amount did not put things right because of extent of the failings and the distress caused to the resident.
As a result of these failings there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £150 compensation. This means the total compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings is £710. This places the compensation award within the range set out in our remedies guidance for a failure that had a significant impact on the resident and where the landlord’s response further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.

Complaint handling

On 10 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states at stage 1 it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days and provide a full response 10 working days thereafter. The policy states at stage 2, it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days and provide a full response 20 working days thereafter.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2023. This was 24 working days after the resident submitted her complaint and 19 working days beyond the response time stated in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord several times as she had not received a complaint response. She then contacted us, and we wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2023 asking it to provide a stage 1 response.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. It awarded £50 compensation for its handling of the complaint. This was 118 working days after the resident submitted her complaint.
The resident told the landlord on 1 August 2023 that she was unhappy with the compensation it had offered. She asked to be compensated for belongings she said had been destroyed by the damp and mould.
On 2 August 2023 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed.
On 3 August 2023 the landlord refused her request to be compensated for damaged items. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her home insurance. The landlord said it could offer £60 towards the cost of redecoration and asked the resident to confirm if she would like the payment.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord several times as she had not received a complaint response. She then contacted us, and we wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2023 and asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response within a week.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. The landlord revised its compensation offer for the delays in its complaint handling to £125.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response 78 working days after the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. This was 58 working days after the response time stated in its complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord did not adhere to the response times set out in its complaints policy. At both stage 1 and stage 2, the resident chased the landlord. However, the landlord only provided complaint responses after we wrote to it. The landlord did recognise there were failings in its complaint handling and awarded £100 compensation. However, this amount did not put things right because of the time and trouble caused to the resident due to the delays. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £125 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £225. This is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £935 compensation. This comprises:
  1. £710 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s handling of reports of property defects.
  2. £225 for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its complaint handling.

The landlord should deduct from this amount the compensation already paid to the resident. The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to Service within the dates specified.