Southern Housing (202431595)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident has several vulnerabilities including a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
   2. There was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould

4. The landlord did not show that it acted proactively, completed any form of risk assessment in relation to the damp and mould, offered reassurance to the resident, completed all the repairs within a reasonable timeframe, or provided clear information on any proposed resolutions. While there is evidence that the landlord took some steps to address the damp, mould, and water ingress into the property, it did not take a proactive approach to do so meaning there were significant delays. The works it did undertake failed to resolve the issue for the resident and while the landlord finally identified the root cause of the issue in December 2024, it remains unresolved. Therefore, the water ingress and, damp and mould remain an issue in the property.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation appropriately reflects the detriment caused to the resident by its failures in its handling of the complaint. 

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.

What we will not look at

6. Throughout the duration of this complaint the resident mentioned the impact the damp and mould had on her mental and physical health. While we do not dispute this, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The Courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to make a determination. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
7. The resident raised a formal complaint in December 2023 about issues that had occurred in her property prior to her complaint. The resident did not bring that complaint to us as a formal complaint to investigate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the period after that complaint and will specifically look at the period from March 2024 when the resident raised the issue of damp and mould again.

8. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the resident’s complaint, including communication and repair records. It provided this information, however, its repair records were not always clear as to when it visited the property, what happened on the visits, or the completion dates of works – multiple completion dates were provided for some repairs. This has affected our ability to conduct a thorough investigation and indicates problems with the landlord’s knowledge and information management which may cause difficulty in how it manages ongoing repairs in its properties.
9. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 10 and 25 March 2024 to assess damp, mould, and water penetration issues. However, there is no evidence that it arranged any follow-up works after either visit. This contradicts the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, which requires it to provide residents with details of any remedial works and an action plan setting out the works to be completed within 6 weeks of the first report. The lack of evidence suggests the landlord did not follow its own process.
10. When the resident formally complained about damp and mould, there is no evidence the landlord took any action until 31 May 2024, when it requested a survey. This delay is further evidence that the landlord did not follow its own damp and mould procedure, which sets out that in all instances of damp and mould, an inspection of the property should be undertaken within 10 working days.
11. Furthermore, it sets out that where an issue may be having a serious adverse health impact on residents, it would inspect the property within 5 working days. The landlord was aware the resident had moved to the property due to a medical need and therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have explored whether that section of its policy applied to the resident in this instance.
12. Furthermore, the landlord’s Damp and Mould Framework says it will risk assess all reports of damp and mould and prioritise them based on the resident’s needs and its hazard assessment criteria. We have not seen any evidence that it completed a risk assessment when the resident reported the damp and mould in March 2024 and then again in her formal complaint. Had it done this, it would have given the landlord an opportunity to ask the resident about her needs and whether there was anything it needed to do to ease the impact on her, taking into account her known medical issues. There is also no evidence that it did this at any point during the complaints process, meanwhile the resident continued to report the issues and note the specific impact the damp and mould had on her.
13. The landlord completed the inspection of the property on 6 June 2024. However, the evidence suggests it did not raise any further follow on works until 1 July 2024. The landlord has failed to show that it communicated with the resident at the time to manage her expectations around the works it would undertake.
14. Following the landlord raising the works, its contractor attended on 3 and 9 July 2024 to complete the works, in line with the 7-day priority which it had given the works. These works included installing vents into the property, cleaning and treating the damp and mould and works to improve the seals around some of the windows.
15. However, despite the works order from 1 July 2024 noting the needs for vents in the living room and kitchen, the landlord did not install these until 5 September 2024. It is unclear from the evidence why there was such a delay, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. It is not appropriate that it took over 3 months for it to complete the work, during which time we cannot see that the landlord had effective communication with the resident.
16. It is important to note however that following the installation of the living room vent, the resident raised concerns about how much of a draught it let into the property. Following this, the landlord appropriately arranged to inspect the issue and booked follow-on works to install a different vent into the property.
17. After the contractor completed the damp and mould treatment on 3 July 2025, the resident raised an issue with the treatment. Despite internal emails showing the landlord sought clarification from the contractor that it had followed the works order, we cannot see that it ever clarified its position to the resident. The resident mentioned this issue to the landlord numerous times throughout the complaints process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out its stance either way in relation to the issue.
18. The June 2024 inspection identified the need for a cavity wall survey and scaffolding to address defective mortar and brickwork across the block. However, by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 2 December 2024, 7 months later, these issues remained unresolved. Although repointing works were carried out on the resident’s balcony, the failure to complete the cavity wall inspection or address the external defects was unacceptable, especially as the landlord was aware the resident was experiencing water ingress, which impacted her ability to enjoy her home. It was unreasonable for the landlord to leave the resident with suspected water ingress into the property.
19. As noted above, the landlord did attend to complete some works to address the issues with failed rendering on the resident’s balcony. However, it only did so after 3 missed appointments and an appointment where the contractor had the wrong equipment. While the landlord appropriately compensated the resident for the inconvenience, it needs to ensure its contractor attends when arranged and if they cannot attend, they communicate that to residents in advance.
20. The contractor did not complete the repairs until 2 September 2024, 4 months after it had initially raised the works, due to the missed appointments. During this period, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the missed appointments and the inconvenience caused. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the contractor to ensure attendance. Landlords must keep effective working relationships with contractors to ensure timely attendance and to ensure it fulfils its obligations under the repairs policy.
21. Furthermore, the resident also raised that on each occasion the contractor was due to attend to complete the balcony works she had to remove heavy items from the balcony and mentioned the effort that it took. However, we cannot see that the landlord considered, at any point, if it could have offered help to the resident or made arrangements for its contractor to move the items for her.
22. The landlord’s lack of ownership of the repair issues continued following the stage 1 response, which demonstrates that it did not take adequate points of learning from the complaint.
23. In the stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had referred the outstanding repairs to its complex case team. While we can understand that the landlord sought to resolve this within the damp and mould team initially, it is evident from internal communications in August 2024 that the landlord was unsure who was dealing with the case. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been internal communication issues, it is unclear why it took from August until November 2024 for it to then refer the case to its complex case team. The lack of effective communication and cohesion between its teams caused significant delays in it resolving the resident’s issues.
24. The landlord advised, in its stage 2 response, that the complex case team would contact the resident by 23 December 2024, which it did. It also arranged for further inspections to take place to investigate the ongoing water ingress into the property.
25. At no point during the ongoing issues with damp and mould did the landlord consider offering temporary solutions, such as a dehumidifier, to the resident. Its lack of consideration of this was not appropriate. It would have been especially important given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s circumstances and the length of time the issue had been going on for.
26. Throughout the duration of the issues, the resident had to spend time chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord has not evidenced that it had effective communication with the resident throughout. However, it is important to note that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint response.
27. In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, she said she had spent money on cleaning products to remove the reoccurring damp and mould. However, the landlord did not respond to this point in its complaint response. It would have been appropriate for it to have clarified its stance in relation to this issue in its stage 2 response.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £685 in compensation for its failings related to the damp and mould. This offer would have been appropriate if the issues were then resolved within reasonable time afterwards. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had ordered further investigations to understand the root cause of the issue which was appropriate. However, we understand that no further works have taken place at the property to resolve the issue. As such, the compensation offered is insufficient to avoid an adverse finding.

29. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with the Code, it did not provide a response until 97 working days after it was due. While during that time it asked the resident for an extension, the code notes that any extension beyond 10 working days must be for good reason. We cannot see that it provided one.
    3. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not evidence that it thoroughly investigated the issues raised. It had errors and did not provide sufficient information on the actions it intended to take going forward to resolve the issue.
    4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 August 2024, again the landlord acknowledged this, in line with the Code but provided its response 51 working days after the response was due. While during that time it asked the resident for an extension, the Code notes that any extension beyond 20 working days must be for good reason.
    5. The landlord noted that at both stage its delay was due to insufficient information, however this is not an appropriate reason for such a lengthy delay and is further evidence of a lack of effective record keeping. The landlord needs to ensure it has robust and efficient systems in place to be able to conduct thorough investigations into a complaint from the outset.
    6. That it did not respond within the required timescales at stage 2 highlights that it did not undertake any learning from the delay at stage 1. However, it did request extensions.
    7. The landlord apologised at both stages of the complaint and provided compensation of £175 for its failings in its complaint handling.
    8. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the complaint could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. As noted above the landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It did not evidence that it kept a log of all communication between itself and the resident or with its contractor. Its repair logs were confusing, noting several different dates and were often unclear on the actions taken and when. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case the resident spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.