Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Selwood Housing Society Limited (202414890)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414890

Selwood Housing Society Limited

29 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests and weeds, subsidence, repairs at his home, and his concerns about roof safety.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 29 April 2024. He lives in a two-bed bungalow.
  2. From early June 2024, the resident raised a number of concerns about a faulty door, and slugs and knotweed in his home. The evidence shows the landlord responded to some of the issues, such as fitting a new door on 12 July 2024.
  3. The resident raised a complaint through the Service on 12 July 2024 about a wide range of issues including subsidence, the condition of his door, slugs, and what he said was knotweed (but which the landlord later explained was chickweed). On 23 July 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response setting out a plan to address some of the matters such as the door, slugs, and chickweed. It reassured the resident there was no subsidence. It apologised that he had had to complain.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint through the Service on 29 August 2024. He repeated his original concerns and said some repairs were unresolved despite multiple visits. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 24 September 2024. It apologised for the resident having to complain, confirmed what work it had completed and what it still intended to resolve and offered £200 compensation.
  5. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman and has said he wants any unresolved repair issues to be completed.
  6. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it has continued to arrange property repairs following the completion of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s communication with the Service, he has provided evidence about new matters such as damp and mould in his home. There is no evidence these issues have been put to the landlord as a complaint. The resident needs to do that before the Ombudsman can investigate them. If he remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process, he has the option of bringing the new matters to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests and weeds, subsidence, repairs at his home, and his concerns about roof safety

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the property structure including the roof, outside walls, floors, external doors, and drains. The landlord’s repairs page on its website sets out its repair priorities from emergency repairs to be addressed within the same day to routine repairs within 30 to 60 days.
  2. The resident complained about slugs in his kitchen after originally reporting the issue to the landlord on 4 June 2024. In its first complaint response on 23 July 2024, the landlord said it had raised a job to fill a hole in the external wall. The evidence shows at an inspection on 16 July, it identified the hole as a potential entry point for the slugs, and on 30 July 2024 it filled the hole. This was confirmed in the landlord’s final complaint response of 24 September 2029. The landlord appropriately repaired the property structure as it was responsible for any repair issues allowing the slugs to access the property. It did so within its repair timescales and this was reasonable.
  3. On 12 July 2024, the resident complained about knotweed in his property after originally reporting weeds growing through internal walls on 8 July 2024. The landlord’s initial complaint response said the plant was chickweed and set out planned internal and external remedial works. The evidence shows the landlord identified the chickweed on 16 July after which it carried out internal carpentry work on 31 July and the external gully works on 17 September 2024. The landlord appropriately resolved the issue in line with its tenancy obligation to keep in repair the property structure as well as within its repair timescales.
  4. The resident complained about subsidence in his home. He said before he moved in, he was aware his home had been empty for a long time for this reason. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses confirmed the subsidence had been fully remedied after a 12 month monitoring period and before his tenancy started.
  5. The evidence shows a 2022 structural report recommending underpinning after a monitoring period along with a certificate dated 28 September 2023 confirming the completion of subsidence damage repairs. The landlord has explained to the Service that “our insurers were instructed to manage the claim and oversee all necessary remedial works” and it did not have any completion records from its insurance company.
  6. After the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the property on 18 July 2024. The evidence shows it observed no signs of subsidence. The landlord’s complaint response resolved the complaint by its timely property inspection to check if there were signs of subsidence following the 2023 remedial works.
  7. The resident complained that his roof was not supporting the weight of solar panels on it. The landlord’s initial complaint response confirmed that the panels and the roof were adequately supported. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the roof on 16 and 18 July 2024 when it observed no issues. However it raised chimney works after noting water ingress during the first inspection. The landlord’s final complaint response reiterated the roof was “in sound condition”. It said the chimney works had been completed, which the evidence shows took place on 29 August 2024. By inspecting the roof in a timely way and proactively resolving a separate chimney issue, it carried out its repair responsibilities and therefore resolved the complaint.
  8. The resident complained about a blocked downpipe on 12 July 2024 which caused his garden to flood when it rained. The evidence shows that at the 16 July inspection, the landlord identified remedial works to the gully pot and pipework (in the neighbour’s property). Its final complaint response confirmed the works were complete. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanation, as it shows the issue was resolved on 31 July 2024. This was in line with its repair timescales and was reasonable.
  9. The evidence also shows the landlord undertook additional repairs in September 2024 including changing the pipe angle. On 3 October 2024, while it said no further works were required, it gave the resident advice about maintaining the drain, said it would speak to his neighbour, and do a site visit if needed. This showed a responsive approach to the downpipe issue and that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  10. The resident complained on 12 July 2024 that his new door and frame had not been fitted properly. The landlord’s initial response agreed the door had been poorly fitted on 12 July and said it would replace it. The evidence shows that after a timely inspection on 18 July, it ordered a new door on 30 July 2024. On the same day, it also informed the resident of the timeframe for the new door and apologised for the inconvenience. Its complaint response acknowledged its failings and put in place a plan to progress the issue and put things right. This was appropriate.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint due to his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s initial response. Its final complaint response confirmed that the door had been replaced, but it planned to complete additional repair works such as sealing it to make it watertight.
  12. While the evidence shows the door was fitted by new contractors on 11 September 2024 it also shows ongoing issues, which the landlord responded to in a timely way such as by adjusting the door in October 2024. Due to the issues persisting, it arranged a manufacturer’s assessment in November 2024. This confirmed that while the door and installation was within specification, a minor adjustment and a new hinge was required. This work was done on 31 January 2025 when the evidence shows the landlord did a post-work inspection.
  13. The time taken to resolve the issue was understandably frustrating for the resident but there is no evidence the landlord missed any chances to resolve it sooner after identifying the necessary work. Accordingly, the time needed to resolve the matter was due to the nature of the work rather than any clear omission by the landlord.
  14. In the resident’s escalation he said there were unresolved repairs despite multiple visits. The landlord’s final response apologised for this explaining some issues needed repeat visits involving multiple trades or due to repairs being identified at different times. The evidence supports its explanation. It also shows the landlord kept the resident informed about its repair timeframes and the reasons for delays. Its explanation and acknowledgement of the impact on the resident was appropriate.
  15. In the landlord’s final complaint response it apologised for and offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience the works had caused. As the main failing was the landlord’s initial door fitting, which it appropriately addressed and resolved, its compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint of this nature.
  16. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress offer put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  17. While the door problem would have been understandably stressful for the resident, the time taken to resolve it reflected the complexity of the repairs. Overall, the landlord’s final complaint response was reasonable. It showed it took seriously and was responsive to all the resident’s concerns. It resolved all the issues, managed the resident’s expectations around timeframes, appropriately apologised for its failings and the stress caused, and compensated the resident. These remedies were appropriate to resolve the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the handling of the resident’s reports about pests and weeds, subsidence, repairs at his home, and his concerns about roof safety.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £200 compensation previously offered and the determination is partly based on it doing so.