Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southern Housing (202234809)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234809

Southern Housing Group Limited

10 September 2024

 

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 how the landlord handled water ingress and associated damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 6-bed mid-terraced house where the resident lives with her 5 adult children. Her children all have mental and physical disabilities including asthma, autism, and blindness.
  2. In December 2021 the local authority installed playground-style black matting in the resident’s garden as a disability adaptation. The resident made an agreement with the landlord that any maintenance or repairs of the matting would be her responsibility. At some point in 2022 the resident had specialist non-slip vinyl flooring installed in her house to make the property safer for her blind daughter. In October 2022 water ingress at the rear of the property had caused damp and mould to damage the new flooring. At some stage in late 2022 the landlord took some action to address the ingress. We understand the resident was convinced the ingress was resolved following this. The landlord then replaced the flooring in December 2022.
  3. The resident complained about further water ingress at the rear of the property in February 2023 and reported that the new flooring was covered in black mould as a result. The landlord attended in March and recommended lifting the matting to investigate to determine whether it was causing the ingress. It also identified faulty brickwork and leadwork around the rear door. It visited again in June 2023 and concluded that the matting was principally to blame. In June 2023 the landlord advised that, because the resident agreed that she was responsible for the maintenance of the matting, it could not do anything to resolve the issues. It advised her to contact the local authority to seek a resolution.
  4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint, so we instructed it to do so on 3 August 2023. The landlord then provided a stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. It reiterated the position it had given in June 2023. However, it acknowledged that a visit on 22 March 2023 had identified required works to the pointing of the brickwork by the backdoor. It agreed to complete this work and cut back the rubber matting. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay in addressing the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident was unhappy with this and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2023. She explained the downstairs flooring in the property was riddled with damp and mould and that the redress offered did not go far enough to redress the impact this had caused her and family. The resident then had the local authority remove the matting at some point in September 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. It explained it had identified that further works were required to stop the ingress. It agreed to a 2-step plan to address this which involved installing a drain and replacing the flooring in the lounge once the ingress was resolved. It apologised to the resident for previously advising that the matting was causing the ingress. It offered her £450 for inconvenience, and the time and trouble she had incurred since she first reported the ingress. It also offered £15 as redress for miscommunication. The landlord installed a drain at some point between this and January 2024, however, the ingress and associated damp and mould persisted. The resident reported this in January 2024 and, following an Environmental Health (EH) inspection in February 2024, the landlord completed works throughout April and May 2024 which resolved the ingress. At some point in early 2024 the resident paid for new matting in her garden.
  7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions because she says it has to-date failed to address the damp and mould inside the property. To resolve her complaint, she considers it should replace all the indoor flooring and reimburse her for the costs of the new matting in the garden.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the water ingress

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out it is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the resident’s property in a reasonable state of repair and in proper working order. Accordingly, it is responsible for repairs to:
    1. Outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, including any painting and decorating needed outside.
    2. Inside walls, floors, ceilings, and doorframes.
  2. The resident has advised us that she had complained to the landlord about water ingress and associated damp and mould in the property from January 2023 onwards. We have not seen any evidence of correspondence from the resident to the landlord from January 2023 until August 2023. However, the landlord acknowledged that she made a complaint about these issues on 16 February 2023, and there are related repair logs from March 2023. Therefore, we will treat 16 February 2023 as the date the landlord was made aware of both issues.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 22 March 2023 and identified water ingress from the rear doorway under the vinyl flooring. It also identified associated mould damage to the lounge floor. It identified that works were required to fix the pointing and leadwork at ground level by the rear door and to lift the matting to check the wall beneath for ingress. On 28 March 2023 the landlord then raised works to “repoint brickwork” and “cut back” the rubber matting. According to its policy, the landlord was responsible to repair any issues it identified with the brickwork or leadwork by the rear door, and so it acted appropriately in raising works to do so.
  4. Following this, there are no records of any further action or correspondence until a visit on 12 May 2023 to “inspect dampness”. The records state there was no access, and so a job card was issued. The landlord then visited on 16 June 2023 to “assess the damaged living room floor”. This was not classed as an emergency, and the landlord’s repairs policy does not set out timescales for non-emergency repairs. While it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to have attended this within 6 hours as per emergency timescales, it is unclear why it took 2 months to organise another inspection following the March 2023 visit. It is unclear why it then took a further month to organise and attend the next visit following the lack of access. It is also unclear why further inspections were being prioritised considering works had already been raised to begin addressing the ingress on 28 March 2023.
  5. We recognise that the landlord may have needed to inspect further due to an evolving situation. However, the works previously identified should have been prioritised or completed alongside further inspections. Repair logs from 16 June 2023 state that the 28 March 2023 works were sent to the wrong contractor, but the landlord did not explain this to the resident or apologise. We consider these omissions likely caused the resident some distress.
  6. On 16 June 2023 the landlord observed that the matting was causing the water ingress because there was not a sufficient gap between it and the rear door. On 20 June 2023 it advised the resident of this and explained that this was causing the mould damage to the indoor flooring. It explained that, because the local authority had installed the matting and the resident had assumed responsibility for it, there was nothing it could do to address the ingress or the mould. It advised the resident to contact the local authority to resolve them.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that “we recognise some repair issues have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition. In these situations, we will investigate the matter promptly and work in partnership with our contractors and in liaison with the resident to resolve the matter. In all instances the resident’s welfare, health and safety will be our primary concern.” Our Spotlight report recommends that landlords take a “zero-tolerance” approach to damp and mould interventions. This means we expect landlords to take a proactive approach to resolving damp and mould by making efforts to address any issues as early as possible.
  8. The landlord identified that works were required for the pointing and leadwork by the backdoor on 28 March 2023, and that these were causally related to the ingress. At the 16 June 2023 visit, it identified that the matting was playing a role, but did not give any consideration to the previously identified structural issues for which it was responsible. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord acted reasonably in relinquishing all responsibility related to the ingress and damp and mould. Even if we accepted the landlord had reasonable cause to believe the matting was solely responsible for the ingress, we would still expect it to have considered what other actions it could take to address or mitigate this and the associated damp and mould. The landlord’s failure to do so does not indicate it had suitable concern for the resident’s welfare given she had explained the mould was harming her and her family’s health. This lack of action was also not in keeping with the proactive approach our Spotlight report recommended landlord’s should take to address damp and mould.
  9. After the 20 June 2023 correspondence there are no related records until the landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. The landlord explained that it attempted to visit on 14 June 2023 to repoint the lower brickwork and cut back the matting but it was not given access to the property. There is no record of this visit. The landlord went onto explain that it would carry out the pointing repairs and cut back the matting as a gesture of goodwill, and that this was booked for 31 August 2023.
  10. Therefore, the landlord then took 2 months following the 16 June 2023 visit to commit to the works first identified in March 2023. It also failed to provide any updates during this time. This was an unreasonable amount of time to take, and the decision should have been made and actioned sooner as per its policy. We consider the delay and changes in its position likely caused the resident distress. Furthermore, given the landlord was obligated to complete the pointing repairs, its decision to offer this a goodwill gesture indicates some confusion regarding its repairs obligations.
  11. The landlord was then due to visit on 31 August 2023 to cut back the matting and repoint the brickwork as per its stage 1 action plan. It failed to attend this appointment and we cannot see any indication it updated the resident or explained why. This likely delayed works further and caused the resident confusion and distress.
  12. The landlord visited on 18 September and noted the local authority had recently removed the matting. It attended on 22 September 2023 to assess what could be done to resolve the ingress and address the “mouldy patches” in the lounge area. It observed, after it had dug into the ground near the rear door, that the damp proof course had been covered by mortar “during the build”. It devised a strategy to resolve the ingress and associated damp and mould via the following works:
    1. Installing a drain by the rear door to capture water before it enters the property.
    2. Adjusting the rear door so it closes more tightly, and replacing the draught seal.
    3. Removing the flooring in the lounge to allow it to dry and determine if the drain had resolved the ingress.
  13. If these measures were successful, the landlord agreed to replace the lounge flooring with new non-slip vinyl. The landlord raised these works with its contractor on 25 September 2023. This action plan seemed a reasonable strategy to address the ingress and associated issues in the lounge area. However, the resident had already advised the landlord that the entire downstairs flooring was affected by damp and mould, yet its observations and action plan were restricted to the lounge area only. The landlord should have inspected the rest of the downstairs flooring and noted any observations, ideally by taking moisture readings. It should then have considered these observations as part of its action plan. It failed to do so. Therefore, we do not consider its investigation of the damp and mould, or its proposed action plan, were sufficient to fully address the issues reported.
  14. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023. It explained its action plan for addressing the ingress and lounge flooring, however, it gave no indication as to when each of the works was likely to be completed. We would expect it to have provided the resident at least an approximate timeframe for each step so she could manage her expectations about when to expect a resolution. Its failure to do so here likely caused her distress and confusion.
  15. The resident has advised that, following the stage 2 response, the landlord failed to fulfil every step in its action plan, and that the remaining steps it took failed to resolve the ingress. There is no record of any action by the landlord or contact with the resident following the stage 2 response until 19 January 2024 when the resident contacted it to report persisting damp and mould throughout the downstairs. She explained that the drain had not been successful as the ingress was unresolved. She also reemphasized the impact this was having on her asthmatic child. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord addressed this email. This was not in keeping with the obligations set out in its policy or our Spotlight report, and we consider it likely it caused the resident further distress.
  16. We can see the landlord installed the drain at some point between September 2023 and January 2024. However, it has provided no records for this period, so we cannot determine when this was done or to what standard. The landlord should have kept records of the actions it took in relation to the strategy it had committed to. Its failure to keep suitable records here, and in other areas, has made our investigation difficult.
  17. Following the 19 January 2024 email, we can see EH inspected the property on 26 February 2024 and wrote to the landlord about its observations. In its inspection report EH observed high moisture levels throughout the downstairs of the property which had led to a visible deterioration of the flooring. It also noted that the drain did not appear to have successfully resolved the ingress. It outlined the following moisture readings of the floor at different locations in the property:
    1. In the kitchen (at the front of the property) – 168/green
    2. By the rear door – 999/red
    3. The rear of the lounge, the hall, and the bathroom floor – 200 to 300/amber
  18. The landlord then inspected the property on 5 March 2024 and noted persisting ingress by the rear door. It also observed that damp readings “were localised to around the door threshold”. There is no record of any specific readings. These observations do not persuade us that it took moisture readings throughout the entire downstairs, which it should have done in response to the resident’s report and the EH inspection. This omission echoes the landlord’s previous failures to robustly investigate the reported damp and mould. It is also disappointing the landlord failed to follow through on the commitments it made in its stage 2 response to ensure the ingress was resolved. This meant the resident then had to go to the time and trouble of raising the issue with EH to prompt the LL to take further action.
  19. Following the 5 March visit the landlord raised works to overhaul the rear door-set to identify the cause of the ingress, and to replace the boxing on either side. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it then:
    1. Adjusted the rear door on 14 March 2024.
    2. Replaced missing leadwork on 23 April 2024.
    3. Completed threshold work on 24 May 2024.
    4. Took damp readings on 23 July 2024 which were “all negative”.
  20. Beyond a photo of faulty leadwork apparently taken on 23 April 2024, there are no records of the 2024 repairs. We also note that faulty lead work by the rear door was first identified on 22 March 2023, but there are no records of any repairs related to this until 23 April 2024.This indicates that the fault identified in March 2023 was the same fault addressed over a year later. We consider this was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address a structural cause of the ingress sooner than it did, and this likely contributed to the delay in resolving it.
  21. The resident explained that the ingress was resolved in May 2024, however, the landlord has still not replaced the lounge flooring as per its action plan. The landlord confirmed to us in an email on 7 August 2024 that it had yet to replace the lounge floor. It agreed to do so “if it is decided that we can offer to replace [the lounge flooring] as part of the complaint resolution”. The landlord should have replaced it once the ingress was resolved as per its previous agreement with the resident, and we will order it to do so. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that damp and mould still affects the other downstairs rooms in the property. The landlord explained to us in its email of 7 August 2024 that, on 27 July 2024, “the hallway was checked and no readings were recorded”. It provided photos of the hallway which it says were on this date, with no immediately obvious discolouration or signs of mould.
  22. This is not a sufficient basis for us to take the view that the there is no damp and mould in these areas. While photos like this can be a useful indicator as to the extent of moisture problems, they need to be supplemented by some kind of data to afford them any significant evidential weight. Given the comparative detail of the EH report, and in the absence of suitably detailed inspection records from the landlord, we remain unpersuaded that its current position on the extent of the damp and mould is appropriately evidence-based.
  23. Ultimately, we consider the landlord’s handling of the ingress and associated damp and mould from February 2023 to present has been characterised by unreasonable periods of delay, poor communication, and substandard investigation. These omissions have all likely caused the resident significant distress for this entire period. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays compensation to remedy this.

Compensation

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy directs it to use the Ombudsman’s guidance. Our guidance on compensation payments sets out that payments between £600 and £1000 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.
  2. The landlord has offered the resident £465 compensation, which we do not consider is sufficient to put things right. We consider that the resident was likely caused significant distress from February 2023 to present by the omissions identified, and this distress was likely more pronounced than it would have been for another person given the vulnerabilities of her children. We note that the damp living room floor would also have had a significant impact on the living conditions in the property from April 2023 to present. We also note there were extended delays following the stage 2 response. Ultimately, the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property remain unaddressed to-date. With these considerations in mind, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £1000 to put this right. This is inclusive of the £465 already offered.
  3. We recognise the resident wants the landlord to replace all of the non-slip vinyl in the downstairs of the property because it is “written off” with damp and mould. We have no evidence by which we can robustly assess the extent of damp and mould, or to what extent the landlord is responsible for this. For this reason, it would not be reasonable for us to order the landlord to do so. However, we will order the landlord to inspect the downstairs of the property for damp and mould and report moisture readings in the specific areas highlighted in the EH report. We will also order the landlord to replace any damaged flooring itself, or, to facilitate a claim on its liability insurance if it has been damaged.
  4. We also recognise the resident would like the landlord to reimburse her the costs she incurred in replacing the matting in her garden. The resident believes that the matting was not causally related to the ingress, and therefore it was unnecessary for her to remove it. Therefore, she considers the landlord should reimburse her for its replacement. We understand why the resident feels this way, given the removal of the matting did not resolve the ingress. The landlord also appears to have caused some confusion about the role the matting played in its stage 2 response when it compensated her for miscommunication.
  5. We can see the landlord’s contractors advised it in June and August 2023 that the matting played a role in the ingress by allowing water under the threshold of the door. From what we have seen, the removal of at least part of the matting was necessary as part of the raft of actions that eventually resolved the ingress, including fitting the drain and overhauling the door and surrounding brickwork.
  6. We recognise the resident has inferred from the different strategies that the landlord repeatedly misdiagnosed the cause of the ingress. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to remove some of the matting on the advice of its contractors in an attempt to resolve the ingress. The landlord offered to remove part of the matting, however, the resident arranged to have it all removed. We note that the landlord sent the resident a disclaimer in December 2021 which set out that she was entirely responsible for the maintenance of the matting. Although she did not sign it, she replied to the email it was attached to and asked if she could sign it via a different format as the electronic signature function was not working. Therefore, we accept the landlord’s position that this means the resident agreed to the responsibilities outlined in the disclaimer. With these considerations in mind, we do not consider the landlord is responsible for reimbursing the resident for the replacement of the matting.

Record keeping

  1. While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
  2. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled water ingress and associated damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £1000 for its omissions in handling water ingress and associated damp and mould in the property. This is inclusive of the £465 already offered.
  3. The landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection and take moisture readings of the specific areas highlighted in the EH report of 26 February 2024. The landlord is to document its findings with photographs and share this information with the Ombudsman and the resident.
  4. The landlord to replace the lounge flooring as per its previous commitment. The landlord is also to confirm its position on the remaining flooring downstairs. If the flooring is damaged the landlord is to replace it, or, to facilitate a claim on its liability insurance.
  5. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reflect on its complaint handling obligations to ensure information provided is accurate and evidence-based.