Southern Housing (202231873)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231873

Southern Housing

29 May 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:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 25 May 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow, and the resident lived with her elderly mother. The resident told the landlord her mother had a gastrointestinal condition and mobility issues.
The resident reported damp in the property in October 2021. The landlord said it decided to reduce the ground level to avoid water penetrating the damp proof course and the resident arranged for these works to be completed by a private contractor. On 11 November 2021, the resident said damp and mould had impacted her health and damaged her possessions.
The landlord visited the resident in December 2021. It obtained a defects report in April 2022. It obtained damp and heating reports for the property in September 2022. These reports made recommendations for works to decrease the risk of damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out drainage works in August 2022 and installed fans for increased ventilation in the property in October 2022. It completed most of the recommended works including bathroom repairs and upgrading the heating system in May 2023.
The resident raised a complaint by phone on 2 May 2023. After discussing the complaint with her, the landlord said the resident’s complaint was that it had not responded appropriately to her reports of damp and mould. In particular, she said the ventilation in the property was not sufficient, and it had delayed in completing bathroom repairs and upgrading the heating system. She also reported damage to belongings caused by damp and mould.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 August 2023 and:
1. apologised for the delay in obtaining a defect analysis report. It said this was due to internal procedures and communication.
2. said it did not action the recommendations of the report until August 2022 due to capacity issues. It said it was recruiting to avoid this in future.
3. said it should have upgraded the bathroom earlier.
4. said it would instal data loggers to monitor the improvement in humidity.
5. advised the resident about preventing damp and mould in the property.
6. offered compensation of £1,125 including £25 for the delayed complaint response, and £1,000 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
7. re-offered £400 it had offered for previous complaints.
8. said it should have improved its communication and carried out surveys more promptly.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 August 2023. In September 2023 she confirmed:
1. the heating was insufficient, and she could not afford to heat the property.
2. she had to buy additional radiators and spent £3,000 on a dehumidifier.
3. the humidity levels remained too high.
4. she wanted compensation for damaged possessions.
5. hers and her mother’s health were impacted by the condition of the property.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. It:
1. repeated its stage 1 response and reoffered the compensation. It offered an additional £50 for its delayed complaint response.
2. advised the resident about the impact of temperature and ventilation on damp and mould prevention.
3. said it had forwarded the resident’s information to the financial support team as she said she struggled to heat the property.
4. said it would install data loggers and provided a timeline for this. It said it would reconsider compensation if there was no improvement.
5. said it had not received any justification or evidence for additional compensation for possessions, stress and ill health or additional spending.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 9 December 2023, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property. She said and it had impacted hers and her mother’s health and caused damage to personal belongings. She said the heating was still insufficient and she wanted increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We may not consider complaints that a resident does not bring to the landlord within 12 months of the issue occurring, that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, or that were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident raised issues including the suitability of temporary rehousing, the outcome of an insurance claim, an overgrown tree, and a rat infestation at stage 1 of her complaint. The landlord responded to some of these issues, but the resident either did not raise them at stage 2 or when bringing her complaint to us.
When escalating her complaint to stage 2, the resident raised a new issue of repairs to a shower. The landlord responded to this in its stage 2 response, but the resident did not raise this when bringing her complaint to us for investigation.
The landlord investigated and responded to a complaint about damp and mould on 10 December 2021. However, the resident did not escalate this complaint or bring it to us for investigation. The scope of this investigation is therefore limited to the issues raised by the resident after 10 December 2021 which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and have been brought to us for investigation.
The resident said the condition of the property affected hers and her mother’s health and caused them significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the household’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience experienced.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy detail its repair responsibilities. It is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair. This includes floors, pipes, drains, heating systems, showers and ventilation fans and inside and outside walls. The landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable period after they are reported.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property if potential hazards are identified. Local authorities can warn landlords when they identify hazards at a property and recommended that they complete works.
The landlord’s damp and mould/repairs and serious health conditions standard operating procedure (operating procedure) says that when it is made aware that property conditions may be having a serious adverse health impact on a resident it will:
1. gather details of the resident’s health issue and how the property condition is adversely affecting them.
2. discuss options for temporary rehousing if the property condition immediately causes a risk to health.
3. create an action plan for resolution and monitor its implementation at 3, 6, and 12-month intervals.
4. keep the resident updated on the progress of work every 3 days.
Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould recommends that landlords:
1. have a risk-based, proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. ensure timely responses to reports of damp and mould.
3. consider mitigation where structural intervention is not appropriate and satisfy themselves that they are taking all reasonable steps.
4. clearly communicate with residents about actions to resolve reports of damp and mould and share information to ensure confidence in the next steps.
5. set clear timetables of works, inform if they change and explain why.
6. ensure effective internal communication.
7. consider vulnerabilities and whether it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage.
The landlord visited the property on 29 December 2021. On 5 January 2022 it reported:
1. there was no visible mould, but the resident said she could smell damp.
2. issues with the air source heat pump (ASHP). It said a survey of the heating and ASHP was required.
3. there was no kitchen fan, and the bathroom fan was inadequate.
4. bathroom shower tiles were missing, and the wall was soaked.
5. the resident said she had a letter from the GP which said the property was uninhabitable.
The landlord was on notice that there may be damp or mould in the property and of various factors which could contribute to this and may require works. It created an action plan on 5 January 2022 which included:
1. raising a survey to identify property defects.
2. arranging a survey of the ASHP and heating.
3. checking if it received a GP letter which said the property was uninhabitable.
The landlord said it sent the resident a copy of an action plan. However, it has not provided evidence of this, or that it continued to update her about the actions. The resident said she sent it a letter from her GP confirming the property was not suitable due to the impact on hers and her mother’s health. The landlord did not gather details of relevant health conditions or satisfy itself that the condition of the property was not a risk to them. This was inappropriate and not in line with its operating procedure.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to identify the source of any damp and mould and whether property defects contributed to this, it did not obtain a defect analysis report until 19 April 2022. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure to ensure a timely response and demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
The report confirmed the resident kept the property well-ventilated. It identified high humidity levels near the missing tiles and mould growth on the cold-water feed pipe. It identified issues with the external drain and waste shower water pipe. It recommended:
1. servicing the ASHP which may be contributing to damp.
2. carrying out a CCTV drain survey and investigating the shower waste pipe.
3. increasing the ventilation.
4. replacing the partition wall and completing tiling repairs in the bathroom.
The landlord took no further action until August 2022, which was an unreasonable delay. It did not satisfy itself it was taking all reasonable steps or clearly update the resident to ensure she knew the reason for any delays during this period. This was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord in August 2022 asking for an update on the works. She said the condition of the property was affecting hers and her mother’s health and they had to keep throwing away personal possessions. She said she raised a complaint, which the landlord did not investigate.
The landlord carried out a CCTV drain survey in December 2021. It completed excavation/ drainage works on 31 August 2022 and said these works were to fix cracks it had identified in the drainage system. It is unclear when these cracks were identified. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord responded to this issue within a reasonable time.
The landlord obtained a heating report on 6 September 2022, 8 months after it identified this was required, which was an unreasonable delay. It also obtained a damp report on 7 September 2022. The reports recommended:
1. insulating the loft and pipework.
2. replacing radiators which were too small and servicing and replacing the ASHP.
3. advising the resident about the required temperatures in the property.
4. testing the shower waste pipe.
5. installing 2 fans in the kitchen and bathroom and a ventilation unit in the loft.
The landlord raised works to remove the existing fans on 21 September 2022. It installed new fans on 5 October 2022 which was appropriate. However, this was almost 10 months after it indicated the previous fans were inadequate, and almost 6 months after visible mould and high humidity levels were reported which was an unreasonable delay. This was also a missed opportunity to show a proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
The landlord raised works to remove and replace part of the bathroom wall on 21 September 2022. The resident told the landlord she would require temporary rehousing whilst these works were completed due to her mother’s health conditions. The landlord agreed to provide temporary rehousing whilst bathroom works were completed.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord inspected and confirmed that wet floors were likely caused by outstanding bathroom tile repairs. The resident expected to be temporarily rehoused in October 2022 and heating works to be completed before winter. She said she wanted the bathroom and other repairs completed at the same time as the heating. Internally, the landlord discussed that it would be some time before heating works were completed.
In agreeing to delay the bathroom works, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself it had considered all reasonable steps to mitigate damp and mould in the meantime during the winter periods, such as carrying out or assessing if a mould wash or temporary repairs were required. There is no evidence it did this, which was not in line with the good practice outlined in our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
The resident emailed her member of parliament (MP) on 6 October 2022 and said her mother was immobile and the property was uninhabitable. She said she was worried about the damp and mould over winter, which had damaged personal belongings. She said carers for her mother had refused to enter the property due to its condition. The MP forwarded this email to the landlord on 21 October 2022.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether there was an immediate risk to the resident and her mother’s health, and if so, to discuss if options, including interim works or temporary rehousing, were appropriate. There is no evidence it did this, which was not in line with its operating procedure.
The local authority served a section 29 category 2 Hazard Awareness Notice to the landlord on 10 November 2022, stating that the damp and mould was a risk to the household’s health or safety. The local authority:
1. recommended it completed works to prevent an increased hazard risk.
2. said humidity levels were too high, and the progress of remedial works was poor.
3. confirmed a rat infestation needed treatment before loft insulation works could be completed.
4. reported mould and disrepair in the bathroom.
5. said the heating system was not suitable.
6. confirmed recommended assessments and works to the bathroom, drains, heating and insulation that were identified in previous expert reports.
Given the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have regard to HHSRS and consider additional monitoring of the property once it was on notice of a category 2 hazard. That it did not was unreasonable.
In October and November 2022, the resident questioned the cause of the damp and which works were going to be completed and by when. The landlord discussed an action plan internally in November and December 2022. However, there was no progress on the recommended works, and it did not keep the resident regularly updated with the reasons for the delays or expected timescales. This was unreasonable.
The landlord noted drainage works were required on 4 October 2022 as the drainage was not running into the gulley. It completed a CCTV drain survey on 26 January 2023 and completed drainage works on 3 March 2023. Its records on the reason for the delay to the drainage works, the nature of the works and whether any follow up works were required is not comprehensive. This has affected our ability to complete a thorough assessment of whether the landlord’s actions in relation to the drains were appropriate.
The landlord completed pest control treatment for the rat infestation in the loft on 20 February 2023. This was more than 3 months after it knew this was required before insulating the loft to prevent further damp and mould, which was not reasonable.
The landlord said the resident and her mother moved into temporary rehousing on 19 April 2023, for the remaining works to be completed. The evidence suggests an issue was identified with rising damp in the floors around 25 April 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of this report, and there is no evidence of the action it took as a result, which was unreasonable.
The landlord completed multiple works in May 2023, including:
1. the recommended wall and tile works, and mould wash in the bathroom.
2. upgrading the heating by replacing the ASHP and multiple radiators.
3. the recommended loft insulation works.
4. installing a ventilation system in the loft.
This was between 8 and 16 months after the landlord identified these works were recommended to prevent damp and mould, which was an unreasonable delay and a failure to show a proactive approach to damp and mould.
The evidence suggests delays were in part due to difficulty coordinating works, availability of temporary rehousing, and internal procurement procedures. The landlord did not consider whether interim measures such as temporary repairs or mould washes were appropriate. Nor did it update the resident with timetables and explanations for the delays, in line with its operating procedure. This was unreasonable. The resident moved back into the property and post inspection works were completed in June 2023.
The resident had reported damage to her possessions due to damp and mould by 10 December 2021. She told the landlord about further damage to her belongings in August, October and November 2022. She said she was unhappy that a liability insurance claim was not upheld. She asked for compensation for damaged possessions at both stages of her complaint.
The landlord said it had contacted its insurance team which would inform the insurer about her complaint. In its stage 1 response it said it could not comment on the insurer’s decision as it was outside its complaints policy. It provided the resident with relevant contact details if she was unhappy with the outcome of the insurance claim. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy also said it would consider any complaints where it may have caused damage. Its compensation policy said it required proof for compensation payments for financial loss over £25. It said in its stage 2 response that it had received no evidence for additional compensation for possessions. It would have been reasonable for it to invite the resident to provide proof of financial loss. There is no evidence it did this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation for some of the delays and set out some learning in its stage 1 response. It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of put things right to agree to instal data loggers to measure the humidity.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide advice to the resident about the room temperature and ventilation in its stage 2 response. It was also appropriate for it to refer her to its financial support team as she had reported difficulty affording to heat the property. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that the heating system was still insufficient to heat the property, which was not reasonable.
The landlord confirmed a timeline for installing data loggers in its stage 2 response. This was reasonable, although there was a delay in the loggers being installed and informing the resident of the results. A report on 4 January 2024 confirmed that:
1. humidity levels were within a normal, acceptable range.
2. all wall and floor surfaces were dry.
3. the kitchen temperature could reach a suitable temperature but was unusually low which may be due to the resident’s heating preference.
However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact on the household’s health or vulnerabilities or assess its actions in relation to this. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. satisfy itself that the condition of the property was not causing immediate or serious health risks.
2. consider the household’s vulnerabilities and whether it was appropriate to consider temporary rehousing.
3. have regard to its duties under HHSRS or carry out any additional monitoring once on notice of a category 2 hazard due to damp and mould.
4. take a proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
5. implement recommended remedial works within a reasonable period.
6. consider alternative mitigating actions when delaying works.
7. create and communicate a clear action plan or timetable of works to the resident or monitor it at regular intervals.
8. clearly communicate with the resident about its actions.
9. maintain or provide comprehensive records.
10. invite the resident to provide evidence of financial loss in support of her compensation request.
11. respond to the resident’s concerns that the heating was still inadequate.
12. respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact on hers and her mother’s health or vulnerabilities or assess its actions in relation to this.
The resident told the landlord that the GP was concerned about the property condition, the property was uninhabitable and that it was affecting hers and her mother’s health multiple times. The landlord was aware her mother was elderly, used a wheelchair, and had a gastrointestinal condition and incontinence. The resident also told the landlord that carers refused to enter the property due to its condition. There is no evidence the landlord took this into consideration.
The resident reported a substantial long-term impact on her and her mother. She said the landlord made her feel as if she should not complain. She said she had to dispose of the contents of the property multiple times and lost documents, photos and furniture. She said she did not feel she could have visitors at the property. She said the damp and mould affected her breathing, and that her mother developed respiratory issues which reduced when she was not in the property. The resident said she needed counselling.
After the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 20 February 2024, a GP confirmed the resident’s mother had respiratory and cardiac health conditions, which were aggravated by constant damp and mould. They also confirmed the condition of the property was causing the resident’s low mood.
We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. We acknowledge that the landlord identified some failures, offered some redress and showed some learning from the delays in resolving the damp and mould. However, our finding is a result of:
1. the number of failures and their accumulation over 17 months.
2. its failure to consider interim measures such as temporary works, mould washes or temporary rehousing.
3. its repeated failure to have regard to HHSRS or its operating procedure.
4. its failure to identify significant failures or learn from outcomes.
5. the seriously detrimental impact on the resident and her mother.
While the landlord made some attempts to put things right with its offer of compensation, we find that the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures outlined in this investigation. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £1,700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. This includes the £1,100 already offered and an additional £600 due to the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her mother.
We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and invite her to send proof of financial loss in support of her requests for compensation. The landlord should then consider any requests for compensation for damaged possessions in line with its compensation policy and write to the resident with its decision.
We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns that the heating system was still insufficient to heat the property and to set out its learning with a particular focus on its response to the reported impact of damp and mould on residents’ health and vulnerabilities.
In its complaint responses, the landlord re-offered £250 compensation that it offered in a previous stage 1 complaint response on 10 December 2021 relating to damp and mould. This complaint was not assessed as part of this investigation. However, given that the landlord offered this compensation in its complaint responses, we have recommended that the landlord re-offers this compensation if it has not already paid this.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy said it would do the following, which was in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code):
1. accept complaints raised in multiple ways including by phone.
2. explain why, if it did not accept a complaint.
3. acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
4. agree an extension with the resident if an extension of more than 20 working days was needed.
The resident told the landlord she had tried to raise a complaint in August 2022 and that it did not investigate it. The resident called the landlord and tried to raise a complaint on 29 March 2023. It failed to investigate her complaint or tell why it had done so. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
When the resident raised a complaint on 2 May 2023, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 22 May 2023, 13 working days after. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
The Code said that landlords could extend the timeframe for responding to a stage 1 complaint by 10 days if they explained why and agreed a response date. The landlord contacted the resident twice in June 2023 to provide updated response deadlines. The resident also contacted us, and we asked the landlord to respond by 30 June 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm the extended response deadlines. However, the extensions were more than 10 days and did not explain the reason for the delays, which was unreasonable.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 5 July 2023 and it apologised for the delay. It did not attempt to agree an extension with the resident, which was not in line with its complaints policy. The resident chased at least another 2 times before the landlord issued a response 63 working days after she had raised the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and was not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge complaints at stage 2 within 5 days. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 August 2023 and the landlord did not acknowledge this within its complaints policy timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy allowed residents to request a review of their complaint by its staff or a review panel including residents. The Code required landlords to issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would issue a stage 2 decision within 10 working days of a review panel. Depending on when the review panel was held, this was not in line with the Code. The landlord’s complaint handling timescales now align with the current Code.
After summarising the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 September 2023, the landlord organised a review panel on 11 October 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 27 October 2023, 12 working days after its review panel. This was 2 working days outside its policy and 30 working days outside the Code, which was not reasonable.
The landlord showed an obstructive approach to logging complaints which was not in line with its policy or the Code. When it did log a complaint, the landlord delayed in issuing a response at both stages. The resident had to chase a response multiple times and it took almost 6 months to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer £50 for complaint handling service failures. It offered £25 compensation at stage 1 and an additional £50 compensation at stage 2 for the delays in its complaint responses.
However, the landlord failed to acknowledge all its complaint handling failures, and the compensation it offered was not proportionate to them. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures in line with our remedies guidance. This includes the £75 already offered.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation from its Chief Executive.
2. write to the resident and:
  1. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this investigation and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. The landlord should particularly focus on its response to the reported impact of damp and mould on residents’ health and vulnerabilities.
  2. invite her to send proof of financial loss in support of her requests for compensation. The landlord should consider any requests for compensation for damaged possessions in line with its compensation policy and write to the resident with its decision.
  3. respond to the resident’s concerns that the heating system was still insufficient to heat the property.
3. pay the resident a total of £1,900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord may deduct the £1,100 already offered if it can evidence this has been paid.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £75 already offered if it can evidence this has been paid.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord re-offers the resident the £250 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response about damp and mould on 10 December 2021, if this has not been paid.