Southern Housing (202332835)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property to the landlord in August 2023. He reported a possible external leak affecting internal brickwork in September 2023. The landlord completed all identified repairs in January 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a leak causing damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak causing damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak causing damp and mould. It did not communicate effectively or keep him updated. However, it fully accepted its service failings, apologised, and offered proportionate redress.
6. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

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.

7. The landlord has accepted there were delays in completing repairs and it did not communicate adequately with the resident. It has explained its findings and position. Overall, our own investigation found the same.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires it to respond to a report with an inspection within 10 working days. The resident first reported damp and mould on 4 August 2023. The landlord booked an inspection for 5 October 2023. This was 44 working days after the resident’s first report. This was not in line with its policy.
9. The resident said the landlord did not turn up for this appointment and he was home all day. We have seen evidence the landlord attended the appointment but was unable to gain access. It attended the rescheduled inspection on 17 October 2023. It then accepted the recommendations from the inspection report the same day, which was reasonable.
10. The resident said he reported a suspected leak at the same time he reported the damp and mould. We have not seen evidence to support this. The first evidenced report of a suspected leak was on 4 September 2023. The landlord attended the next day in response to this as an urgent repair in line with its policy.
11. The resident said the operative who attended reported him as a shared owner which caused delays. The visit notes say the operative reported the resident had used his own contractor to do the bathroom and was unsure who was now responsible for repairs. The landlord should have contacted the resident to clarify and discuss this further. It has accepted that it should have communicated better with him.
12. As the landlord has explained, where the source of a leak is not obvious, it can take follow-up visits to find. While inconvenient and often distressing, it can sometimes take a worsening of the situation to find the underlying issue. The landlord found the cause of the leak on its second visit and repaired it the same day. It then arranged repairs for the damage caused by the leak and the resulting damp and mould, which was in line with its policy.
13. The landlord has completed all identified repairs. There were delays in its handling of the resident’s reports and concerns and it did not communicate effectively with him. However, it has fully accepted its failures, apologised, and offered £450 compensation. It directed him to the local authority to pursue a property transfer. It further offered to consider a refund of costs once he provided evidence. This was a suitable response.
14. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer was proportionate and consistent with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the £450 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code. Its responses were issued in line with this.
16. The landlord’s complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns. They offered explanations and set out next steps. They managed the resident’s expectations by correctly signposting him to the local authority. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.

Communication

18. The landlord did not communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.