Southern Housing (202523916)

Decision
Case ID	202523916
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in this property with her young daughter who has asthma. She reported having experienced cold, damp and mould in the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould

The landlord delayed in taking action to deal with the reported coldness issues. It did not coordinate this with addressing the damp and mould even though it identified the heating issues as a contributing factor to the damp and mould. It did not address the concerns about low temperatures in the property or the new discovery of mould, leaving the resident in uncertainty.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not correctly capture that the resident’s complaint was about the coldness as well as the damp and mould. It did not give sufficient information in its complaint responses the works that remained outstanding and what its next steps were.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 (on top of the £545 it has already paid) made up as follows: £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its handling of the reports of cold, damp and mould. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a new damp and mould inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection are completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the inspection or survey reports. What the inspection must achieve: The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects any damp and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the coldness, damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 10 April 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any works identified from the inspection (as ordered above) are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary while works are completed and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 24 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 February 2025	The resident complained that the property was always cold and draughty. She said this affected her daughter’s respiratory issues.
6 March 2025	After speaking with the resident, the landlord acknowledged her complaint, describing it as: ‘you are unhappy with the lack of progress following a damp and mould inspection’.
20 March 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it required an extension to provide its complaint response.
2 April 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It stated: It had instructed its contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey as of August 2024, however, due to a system error, the contractor had not received this until recently. It completed a mould wash on 18 March 2025. It acknowledged the damp and mould had not been resolved in full. It would arrange for a survey on 8 April 2025. It offered £190 in total in compensation (£60 for failure to repair; £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble; £15 for failure to follow process; £15 for the resident having to chase for a response).
24 April 2025	The resident accepted the £190 compensation.
2 June 2025	The resident wrote to complain that: The landlord had not given updates regarding repairs. She was not offered temporary accommodation. During the damp and mould treatment, the landlord found “severe black mould” in both bedrooms, but did not follow up. Contractors visited her home twice without appointments and did not tell her what work they were doing.
9 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint.
4 July 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it needed an extension till 1 August 2025 to issue a response.
31 July 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. This stated: Its contractors had completed internal and external damp and mould works. It apologised for the lack of communication and operatives attending without notice. It acknowledged a delay in completing the works, and a delay in responding to the complaint. Its damp and mould team would contact the resident regarding any outstanding works. It acknowledged the resident had to purchase materials to complete redecoration herself. For this offered a discretionary reimbursement of £50. It also offered £305 compensation (£250 for the inconvenience caused, ££15 for failure to follow process, £15 for resident having to chase, £25 for failure to respond to complaint on time).
2 September 2025	The resident referred the matter to us.
7 October 2025	The resident accepted payment for £355 from the landlord.
5 February 2026	The resident explained to us she continued to experience dampness and high humidity in the flat, and she remained concerned for her daughter’s health. It had been less cold in the flat since the landlord replaced radiators in mid-October 2025. She wanted to be given higher priority for re-housing in view of her daughter’s health concerns.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of cold, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have considered

We have considered events starting from 18 February 2025 (when the resident first raised a complaint about the cold) to 13 October 2025 (when the resident reported the radiators were replaced).
Although the landlord has not addressed the heating issues in its complaint responses, it was the subject of the resident’s original complaint in February 2025. We have therefore considered the landlord’s actions in response to the heating issue.

What we have not considered

The resident has reported that her daughter’s asthma was affected by the cold, damp and mould. She sent us medical evidence in this regard. We are not able to look into what caused her daughter’s respiratory symptoms as that would be better suited to a personal injury claim in the courts. We are however able to make findings of impact in terms of general distress and inconvenience.
The resident additionally referred to other matters in her complaint escalation request, including noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour from neighbours. We have not looked into these issues, as they were not related to the original complaint and they have not yet been responded to under the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The handling of reports of cold, damp and mould

The resident’s original complaint was about coldness. She said temperatures inside the property were reportedly ‘consistently dropping below 12 degrees Celsius and not reaching 18 degrees Celsius’ even with radiators turned on. Records showed the landlord carried out a heat survey in mid-March 2025 and approved new radiators as of 17 March 2025. However, there was an unexplained delay in this work. The radiators were replaced 7 months later, in mid-October 2025.
There is no record to show the landlord ever acknowledged or offered an explanation for this delay. The resident asked for a copy of the heat survey which the landlord did not provide to her. She was left in the same position without an update and the problem remained unresolved from March to October 2025. While we acknowledge this period was in the relatively warmer months of the year, there was a failing in terms of the landlord’s progression of the repair and its communication with the resident.
The initial survey on 8 April 2025 found that ‘ventilation alone was not enough to control the [damp and mould]; most likely an imbalance of heating and ventilation was causing condensation to form inside’. At this point, the landlord should have been aware the heating issues were potentially a factor contributing to the reported damp and mould. Following this finding, we would expect the landlord to provide a coordinated response to address both the heating issues and damp and mould issues.
However, the landlord’s actions regarding the heating system and the damp and mould were separate, which led to an overall disjointed response that was difficult for the resident to follow at times.
With regards to the damp and mould, the landlord acknowledged it should have inspected around August 2024 but it did not carry this out until the resident made a complaint. It carried out an inspection on 8 April 2025 (8 months later) and a second, more detailed one on 13 May 2025.
These surveys identified issues with air bricks, ventilation, a potential issue with the damp proof course in the bedrooms, a small leak from the soil stack and potential leaks in the bathroom. The surveyors recommended remediation works, including insulation in the walls, repairing the soil stack and damp proof course work. These works were mostly completed by mid-June 2025 with the exception of 2 passive vents in the bedrooms.
However the resident reported ‘severe black mould’ behind the plasterboards while the landlord was completing the damp and mould treatment. The landlord did not respond. Even if removing and replacing the plasterboards and injecting the damp proof course had effectively resolved the problem, the landlord should have offered an explanation to mitigate her concerns. A post-inspection report would have been helpful, however the landlord did not carry this out.
There was no evidence the landlord offered an explanation to the resident on the status of the works. It had opportunity to do so at stage 2 but it only stated the damp and mould team would reach out directly to her ‘for any further works’. It did not identify what works remained outstanding. This was a communication failing that failed to offer her reassurance or fairly manage her expectations.
The resident also referred to related issues such as operatives visiting her property without an appointment, and having to redecorate herself. The landlord has apologised for this and offered reimbursement of £50 towards the costs of redecorating.
Overall the landlord offered £520 (£190 at stage 1; £330 at stage 2 including the costs of redecoration) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This went some way towards mitigation of the impact she experienced. However the landlord had not acknowledged or offered redress for other failings. These included a 7-month delay in dealing with the heating issue, which should have been coordinated with the damp and mould response; and the lack of response to the newly reported mould behind the plasterboards.
We consider the landlord did not go far enough to recognise the impact to the resident, or demonstrate it understood what went wrong. It missed opportunities to learn from these events. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of cold, damp and mould. We have made orders above for it to apologise and pay additional compensation to better reflect the detriment caused to the resident. We have also ordered it to carry out a further inspection to ensure the issues have been resolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord asked for extensions at both stages 1 and 2. It acknowledged a delay in issuing a stage 2 response, offering £25 in recognition of the time and trouble this caused. This was appropriate.
However it did not recognise several issues in its complaint handling. At stage 1, the landlord characterised the resident’s complaint as being solely about the damp and mould, without recognising that her complaint was also about the reported cold conditions. It had opportunity to review this at stage 2 but did not do so. This meant that throughout the internal complaints process, the resident did not receive a response as to the heating issues.
This remained the case despite the landlord identifying early on that the temperature issues along with the ventilation issues might have been causing the damp and mould. It missed opportunities to identify gaps in its overall response.
The complaint response at stage 2 also did not give sufficient information as to next steps. While it was detailed in describing works that had been done, it only briefly mentioned that the damp and mould team would reach out to her for ‘any further works’. This left the resident in doubt as to what works were remaining, whether the damp and mould had been resolved, and when future works would take place.
Overall, we consider the landlord had not done enough to recognise these issues and the distress and inconvenience they had on the resident. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication, Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord was unable to confirm which repairs remained outstanding after it did a range of damp and mould works in June 2025. It also failed to capture the resident’s complaint about heating and to respond appropriately. If it had reviewed the data at hand in a comprehensive manner and done a post-inspection for its repairs, potentially it could have given the resident a more informed response to mitigate the distress and inconvenience on her from the uncertainty.