Southern Housing (202520130)

Background

1. The resident uses a machine at night to help him breathe. He complained about persistent damp in the bathroom and in 2 bedrooms. The landlord also incorporated complaints about a roof leak and a ceiling containing asbestos into the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A roof repair.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. Replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. a roof repair
   2. damp and mould
   3. replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos
   4. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof leak

4. The landlord took 8 months to complete a repair to the roof and it did not keep the resident informed during this time.

Damp and mould

5. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a timely damp and mould inspection of the property or completed a risk assessment. The damp and mould remain an issue. It is also unclear whether the cause of the problem is resolved.

Ceiling

6. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident when he first reported the issue. There was a delay in it instructing a contractor to remove the ceiling and it did not keep the resident informed about this. Following the resident declining the work it has not re-assessed the risk posed.

Complaint

7. There were long delays and the landlord did not use the complaint handling process to resolve the issue.

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.

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.

8. The resident has said that the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue has affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Instead, we have considered whether he experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days of a resident reporting them. Where this is not possible it will keep residents informed of the reasons for the delay.
10. There is evidence that the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in November 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that a roof leak caused this. However, it did not raise a repair job until 11 February 2025. This lengthy delay was unacceptable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he was living with ongoing damp and mould in the property.
11. A contractor completed repairs to the roof on 7 July 2025 when they cleared debris from the gutters and refixed a slipped tile. The landlord did not keep the resident informed of the reasons for the delay.
12. Overall, it took the landlord 8 months to complete the roof repair, this was not in line with its policy and it did not keep the resident informed. This caused him distress and inconvenience and cost him time and trouble making a complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of a roof repair.

13. The landlord’s damp and mould operating procedure says that following a report of damp and mould it aims to contact the resident on the same or next working day. It says it will arrange a visual inspection of the property within 10 working days. The procedure also says that it aims to complete any necessary work within 6 weeks and if a case remains unresolved after 5 weeks the matter should be escalated to the director of repairs and estate transformation.
14. In his complaint the resident said that there had been a longstanding issue with damp and mould in the property for years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult to complete a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Taking this and the availability and reliability of evidence into account, this assessment has focussed on the period from 11 November 2024 onwards.
15. As detailed in the previous section, following the resident’s report of damp and mould we have seen no evidence that the landlord took action until 11 February 2025 when it logged a repairs job. The landlord noted that it called the resident the same day but received no reply. It then cancelled the job on 23 April 2025 and raised another on the same day but we have seen no evidence that it completed a damp and mould or risk assessment. It is important that a landlord completes risk assessments to understand the severity of the issue and to demonstrate that it has considered whether a residents health condition would be affected. It may also mean that it finds the cause of the damp and mould sooner.
16. The contractor that completed the roof repair said on the quotation that the “property is suffering from mould issues. This is not related to roof leak. Internal inspection by another contractor required.” During this time the resident took further time and trouble contacting the landlord. In 1 of his emails, he told it that another contractor attended the property on 22 July 2025 and said that the problem lay with inadequate ventilation in the roof area, leading to condensation. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on any advice given by this contractor, and the resident has told us that the damp and mould issue remains.
17. In summary, we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a timely inspection of the property, or that it has completed a risk assessment in the 15 months since the resident reported the issue. We have also seen no evidence that the matter was escalated in accordance with the landlord’s procedure. The resident has advised us that the damp and mould is still a problem. It is also unclear whether the landlord has rectified the cause of the issue. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould and we have made orders for it to put things right.

18. The resident’s concerns about the finding of asbestos materials within his home are understandable. It is not our role to investigate the level of asbestos or the risks involved, but to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
19. The presence of materials containing asbestos in a home does not automatically constitute disrepair or place a repair obligation on the landlord. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 state that if existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place. Their condition should be monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
20. Additionally, the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. These include asbestos. Under the HHSRS, the landlord must assess any current damage or potential fibre release. The landlord’s website says that if residents think there are materials that may contain asbestos in their home which are damaged or in a poor condition, they should contact it.
21. The landlord commissioned an asbestos survey for the property in 2023. This determined that most of the textured ceiling coatings in the property contained a form of asbestos but this was a very low risk. The surveyor noted that they could not access the bathroom at the time of the survey but presumed that the coating on the ceiling in this room would be likely to contain asbestos also.
22. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord that a section of the ceiling in the bathroom had collapsed on 28 July 2025. At the same time, he told the landlord that a contractor that previously attended the property said that they thought the ceilings coatings would contain asbestos. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns directly until it provided a stage 2 complaint response on 7 October 2025. This lack of communication caused the resident further distress because he was unaware of the risk level involved.
23. On 24 September 2025, 2 months after the resident reported the issue, the landlord asked a specialist contractor to remove the bathroom ceiling. This delay was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and we have seen no evidence that it updated the resident during this time despite him spending further time and trouble contacting it for an update 3 more times.
24. The specialist contractor emailed the resident on 29 September 2025. It told him that it would attend on 25 October 2025 to remove the ceiling and would reinstate it on 29 and 30 October 2025. It said that it may ask the resident to leave the property for safety reasons. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to express his concerns about leaving the property and to request temporary accommodation. The landlord contacted the contractor who explained that a decant would not be necessary as the removal element of the repair would only take a few hours during which time the household may or may not be asked to leave. The contractor said that it had explained this to the resident on the telephone.
25. The landlord explained this in writing to the resident on 7 October 2025 in the stage 2 complaint response. However, the resident told it that he did not want the work done unless it provided the household with temporary accommodation for 3 days. The landlord asked a resident liaison officer to help communicate with the resident to try to reassure him that he could safely use the shower everyday while the work was underway, but he was not reassured by this and the work remains outstanding.
26. The landlord acted reasonably in taking the advice of the specialist contractor and we have seen evidence that they advised the landlord that the removal work would only take a few hours, during which time the household may need to leave the property. There is evidence that the landlord explained this in writing and on the telephone which was appropriate. The landlord has told the resident that the contractor will rearrange the work if he allows access.
27. Following the resident declining the work, the landlord should have considered arranging another asbestos survey of the bathroom to assess the new risk posed now that the ceiling was damaged. However, we have seen no evidence that it has done so. This failure means that the landlord is unaware of the ongoing risk within the property and whether it should take further action to resolve the issue as a matter of urgency.
28. In summary, the landlord did not communicate well with the resident when he first reported the issue. There was a delay in it instructing a contractor to remove the ceiling and it did not keep the resident informed about this. However, it was reasonable for it to consider the specialist contractors advice that the bathroom would only be inaccessible for approximately 3 hours and therefore not to offer temporary accommodation, especially considering that there is another toilet within the property. Following the resident declining the work it has not re-assessed the risk posed. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos.

29. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs more than 10 working days to respond to the complaint, it says it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response. This is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
30. In this case the landlord took 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint and a further 21 working days to provide a full response. It did not contact the resident to extend the timescale until after the response was due. This delay and failure to follow its own policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused frustration. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
31. The landlord’s complaint policy also says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs longer, it says it will explain why, inform the resident of the new expected timescale, and respond within the extended timeframe. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that any extension should be no more than 20 working days without good reason.
32. In this case the landlord took 20 working days to acknowledge the complaint and only did so when the resident took time and trouble to chase it up. It then took another 51 working days to provide a response. During this time the resident contacted it several more times. The landlord let the resident to know that it was extending the timeframe but did not keep to the new timeframe and extended a further 2 times. This unacceptable delay caused him further distress and frustration. It also further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
33. Despite the extra time taken to provide a stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not respond to all the complaints raised by the resident. It did not mention the damp and mould situation at all or give any insight into the cause of the issue. This error cost the resident further time and trouble contacting us to request an investigation and meant that the landlord failed to use the complaints process to put things right.
34. In summary, there were long delays and the landlord did not use the complaint handling process to put things right. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 at stage 2 of the process for complaint handling failures. However, we do not think this reflects the time, trouble, and distress caused. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £150 compensation for this element of the complaint.

Learning

35. The landlord should review this case to see why it did not deal with the report of damp and mould in line with its procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord provided incomplete records for contractor visits. For example, we are only aware that another contractor visited the property on 22 July 2025 because the resident included this information in an email.

Communication

37. As demonstrated in the findings above the landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident about the repairs and the complaint.