Southern Housing (202220219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220219

Southern Housing

19 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.
3. Concerns about damage to the garden path.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a house. She lives in the property with her 3 children. The resident has long-term ill health and is diagnosed with asthma which the landlord was aware of.
In October 2021 the resident reported there was mould within a number of rooms within the property.

In February 2022 the resident said there was a leak in the rear door, and there was damage to the path in the rear garden. The contractor also advised the landlord that it would need to install scaffolding so the contractor could carry out the repointing of the brickwork at the property.
Between September 2022 and October 2022, the landlord:
1. Started repairing the path in the rear garden.
2. Agreed to replace a blown windowpane.
3. Raised a job to put up scaffolding and repair the broken tiles on the roof.
On 22 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the above repairs. She also said her windows were falling apart and she wanted them to be replaced.
In January 2023 the resident said the roof was leaking and the chimney breast and the wooden beams in the loft were wet.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023. The landlord apologised for its miscommunication in its handling of the repairs. It awarded the resident £580 compensation. The landlord said it would carry out an inspection of the outstanding repairs at the property.
On 13 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. She said the landlord had not taken into consideration all the damage caused by its delays in addressing the outstanding repairs. She also wanted the landlord to compensate her for the cost of her purchasing a dehumidifier, as well as for the cost of her increased energy usage.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. It increased its overall award of compensation to £605. The landlord said it would complete any internal works to the property once the property was watertight. The landlord also said it would repair all of the windows, complete the repointing works, and inspect the damp in the loft.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating she wanted the landlord to complete all the repairs, and to increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of investigation

As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health had been affected by the landlord’s handling of the complaints that form part of this report. We acknowledge what the resident has said. It is also widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. We have considered the general risk posed by damp and mould as well as any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health. southernThe resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

In October 2021 the resident reported there was mould in the loft, bedrooms, around the front door, and skirting boards of the property. The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the property on 27 October 2021.
We have not seen the results of the landlord’s inspection, so we do not know what works were identified. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide us with this type of information, and its failure to provide it, is evidence of poor record keeping.
The landlord carried out a mould wash to the ceilings in 2 of the bedrooms on 13 March 2023. This was 502 days after its original inspection. This was a significant delay during which we understand the resident experienced distress having expressed concerns about the impact the damp and mould had on her health. The landlord should have carried out these works as a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs policy does not have a published timescale. However, this type of repair should be completed within 28 days, in line with industry best practice.
Between October 2021 and October 2022, the contractor asked the landlord 4 times to put up scaffolding. This was so the contractor could carry out the repointing of the brickwork at the property. We have seen evidence the resident chased the landlord for it to carry out this repair. The landlord put up the scaffolding on 25 March 2023. This was 504 days after the contractor first asked the landlord to do this. The landlord then said it completed the repointing of the brickwork a further 70 days later on 24 May 2023.
We understand the landlord needed to locate and then put up the scaffolding to carry out these works. However, the landlord should have completed this within 12 weeks, in line with industry best practice. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates during this time. We would expect a landlord to acknowledge a resident’s communication within 5 working days. The landlord should have also kept the resident updated with its timescales of when its works would be completed. This is evidence of poor communication.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair to fix the tiles on the roof. On 9 January 2023 the resident then chased the landlord for it to carry out this repair. The resident told the landlord the chimney breast and the wooden beams in the loft space were ‘saturated’ from the leaking roof. She also said the wood in the loft had a white substance growing on it.
The landlord was right to carry out an inspection of these areas of the property between 7 February 2023 and 8 February 2023. The landlord then carried out some of the works to the roofon 2 May 2023.However, we understand in December 2023, the resident said the roof was still leaking. The landlord then completed the repairs to stop the leaks in the roof by 11 June 2024.
It is accepted that repairs to a roof can be subject to weather conditions and therefore may take longer than a standard repair of 28 days. However, overall, the landlord took 635 days to repair the leaking roof. This is a significant delay and is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs.
We would also expect the landlord to keep the resident updated and work with her, setting out a timescale that is reasonable and in line with industry best practice. The landlord did not do this, and this is evidence of a failing in its communication in its handling of this repair.
On 23 April 2023 the landlord completed a survey of the damp and mould in the loft space at the property. The surveyor made a recommendation for the landlord to cut out and replace the decayed timbers. The surveyor also said it should treat the areas where there was evidence of wet rot fungus, and white rot within the loft space. The resident chased for the landlord to carry out these works. The landlord is not obliged to carry out all of its surveyors recommendations. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate its decision to not do the works to the resident and explain what it intended to do instead to resolve the repair issues she had reported.
We understand the landlord’s surveyor carried out a further inspection of the loft on 21 October 2024. The surveyor said they disagreed with the previous survey and said:
1. The roof space was adequately ventilated and warm.
2. There were no leaks.
3. The stains on the wood were from a previous leak which had been resolved.
It was reasonable for the landlord to accept the findings of its updated survey. It was entitled to rely on the opinion of the surveyor as a suitably qualified person.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 21 April 2023, the landlord said it would not compensate the resident for the cost of her dehumidifier. The landlord said this was because the resident had not consulted it before making this purchase. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it would not be expected to pay for items without first being given the opportunity to assess the circumstances of the resident’s request. If the landlord had been aware that the resident planned to purchase a dehumidifier it could have opted to lend her one instead, which would have been a cheaper option.
We acknowledge the resident told the landlord her energy usage had increased due to the outstanding repairs and having to run a dehumidifier at the property. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023, the landlord said it awarded the resident £330 compensation for inconvenience and for the additional cost of running the dehumidifier. These are 2 separate matters.
The landlord should have specified the amount it was awarding the resident for her increased energy usage. We would expect the landlord to have asked the resident to submit copies of her energy bills from when she started to use the dehumidifier, as well as the previous year so it could investigate her concerns .
Therefore, we will make an order that subject to the resident providing evidence of when she purchased the dehumidifier, along with copies of her energy bills for the relevant period, the landlord is to calculate and pay the resident for the increased energy usage for her property for that relevant period until 11 June 2024 which was when the landlord said it completed the works.

The landlord also said it would carry out an inspection of the internal damage to the property caused by the outstanding repairs. The landlord said it would carry out the repairs for which it was responsible, once the property was watertight. We have not seen any evidence this inspection took place or that the internal works were completed. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the internal damage to the resident’s property. The landlord is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
The landlord awarded the resident £450 compensation in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It is positive the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough. Therefore, we will increase this to £900. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time.

The resident’s request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.

On 10 February 2022 the resident reported the rear door of the property was leaking. The landlord’s contractor repaired the door the year before. The resident said the contractor told her if the repair to the door did not work then the landlord would replace it. The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for keeping external doors in proper working order. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its repairs policy by replacing the rear door.
Between October 2022 and November 2022, the resident said she had cracks in the windows and wanted them to be replaced. The contractor said it had replaced the hinges and replaced a number of glass panes, and there was nothing further it could do to repair them.
The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for keeping windowsills, catches, and frames in a reasonable state of repair and good working order. Where the resident and the landlord’s windows contractor were in a disagreement about the state of the windows, the landlord should have visited the property and carried out a further inspection to determine if the windows needed further repairs or to be replaced.
Between 7 February 2023 and 22 February 2023, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the windows at the property. The landlord raised a number of repairs to all of the windows which included replacing trims and replacing glass panes which had blown. The landlord told the resident it would complete these repairs within 8 weeks. The repairs were then carried out around 21 months after the landlord raised them, in November 2024.
We understand this delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience, who said these repairs contributed to the cold and damp within her property. This is a significant delay and is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs. These repairs should have been completed within 8 weeks as the landlord had agreed. If the landlord needed longer, it should have communicated this to the resident, setting out the reasons for the delay and when the repairs would be completed.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.
The landlord awarded the resident £60 compensation in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. We are also aware the landlord has since also replaced all of the windows at the resident’s property as part of its planned works programme. It is positive the landlord offered compensation and replaced the windows but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough in terms of its compensation offer. Therefore, we will increase the resident’s compensation to £300, taking into account the £60 already offered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

The resident’s concerns about damage to the garden path.

On 10 February 2022, the resident said the path in the rear garden of the property was severely damaged. She explained it was dangerous because the path had jagged edges of concrete which were sharp, and meant her children were unable to safely use the garden. The landlord started to carry out some of the repairs to the path on 23 September 2022. However, the landlord failed to complete this repair. The landlord should have completed this work as a routine repair within 28 days, in line with industry best practice.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023, the landlord accepted it had not made the path safe and raised a job for its contractor to complete the outstanding works. The landlord has not completed these works. We acknowledge this has caused the resident distress and inconvenience and she has said her children have been unable to use the garden for the last 3 years.
The resident has told us that the landlord’s surveyor made a recommendation to resolve the repair by raising the level of the garden with topsoil and then to turf the path. The resident said the landlord has refused to carry out this recommendation due to the amount the work would cost. Whist we acknowledge her comments, we have not seen any evidence to corroborate what the resident has said. As above, the landlord is also not obliged to carry out the recommendations it receives form its surveyors.
However, the landlord has failed to find a solution to make the garden safe for over 3 years. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the path in the rear garden. It is to then make the garden safe and carry out repairs for which it is responsible within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage to the garden path.
The landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation for its failings in its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

The resident’s associated complaint.

On 22 November 2022 the resident raised the above complaints to the landlord. The landlord provided its stage 1 written complaint response to the resident’s complaints on 9 February 2023. This was 54 working days later. During this time, we also intervened and advised the landlord to provide the resident with its response to her complaint.
The landlord should have provided its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
The landlord provided its stage 2 written complaint response on 21 April 2023. This was 48 working days after the resident requested to escalate her complaints. The landlord communicated to the resident that it needed extra time before it could provide its stage 2 written complaint response. Whilst we accept the landlord’s delay in providing its response was not excessive, it was not in line with the Code. This is because the Code states that we expect a landlord to provide its stage 2 written response within 20 working days. Where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint at stage 2, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.
The landlord apologised for the delays and awarded the resident £95 compensation within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.
3. Concerns about damage to the garden path.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.
3. Concerns about damage to the garden path.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total amount of £1,500 compensation which includes the £605 it awarded in its final response to the resident’s complaint. The £605 can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £900 for its errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. £300 for its delays in its handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the windows and doors at the property.
3. £300 for its errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damage to the garden path.
Subject to the resident providing evidence of when she purchased the dehumidifier, along with copies of her energy bills for the relevant period, the landlord is to calculate the increased energy usage for her property for that relevant period until 11 June 2024 which was when the landlord said it completed the works.
The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the internal damage to the property caused by the outstanding repairs in this report. It is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the path in the rear garden. It is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including making the path safe. The landlord is to share this with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord is to then carry out these works within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £95 it awarded the resident in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses for its handling of her complaint within 28 days of this report, unless this has already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this will be paid.