Southern Housing (202324807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324807

Southern Housing

14 March 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:
1. Handling of concerns about grounds maintenance.
2. Handling of concerns about parking.
3. Handling of reports of mould at the property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association and is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

On 25 March 2023 the resident raised his complaint about the maintenance of the garden area. He told the landlord about issues with hedges, grass cutting, weeding and bin areas. He said gardening services were “sporadic” and asked the landlord to take action. He told the landlord he expected a response within 10 days.
On 24 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint about mould in the property and the damage it caused to his personal belongings. He told the landlord of “extensive” mould growth on his clothes, furniture and other belongings. He said the landlord had not completed proposed works and that the underlying issues with the property contributed to mould problems. On the same day, the resident raised a further complaint about parking issues. He said he had previously raised the issue of an unauthorised vehicle parking in a parking bay and the issue was ongoing. He told the landlord he expected a response within 10 working days.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and said it would address all 3 complaints in 1 response. It said it would provide a written response in 10 working days. On 12 June 2023 the landlord said it needed more time to respond to the complaint following a site visit. It said it would respond on 3 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 July 2023. It dealt with each issue in turn and said:
1. Hedges, grass cutting, flowerbeds and weeds. It met with the relevant department on 15 June 2023 and apologised that the grounds standard had not been met.
2. Inconsistent visits by ground maintenance. It would remedy the issues over the next 2 visits and agreed replanting should take place in areas to the carpark. It would do this around September time and would conduct monthly checks.
3. Bin areas. The area was not cleaned as part of its grounds contract. It would check the bin area and arrange a one-off clean, if required.
4. Parking issues. It had appointed a contractor to monitor the car park and anyone not displaying a permit would be issued with a fine. Its contractor would monitor the car park at different times during the week and weekends. It would also write to all residents with clear information on how to park.
5. Damp and mould. It completed a damp survey on 18 December 2020 and a recommendation for a ventilation system was made, which the resident declined. It conducted another damp survey on 2 March 2023 where recommendations for venting fans and the ventilation system were made again. It installed fans on 13 April 2023. It provided the resident with contact details of its Financial Inclusion Team and said it may be able to assist with the costs associated with the running of the ventilation system.
6. It conducted another damp survey on 12 June 2023. It found the property was not affected by damp and condensation was not present at that time. It found there was a lack of insulation in the loft area and was awaiting a start date from its contractor to address this. It explained the recommendation was still for the ventilation system and asked the resident to contact it to arrange fitting.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 July 2023. He told the landlord how he felt its response did not fully address his concerns. He told the landlord that it should credit or refund service charges paid for the garden maintenance.
It is understood that the landlord met with the resident via a video call on 23 August 2023. This was to discuss the outstanding issues as part of a review meeting.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. It dealt with each issue in turn and said:
1. It agreed weeding was required, shrubs needed attending and hedges needed to be cut back. It had been dealing with the issue with its contractor, it had been monitoring attendance and taking extra spot checks of the quality of work.
2. It would continue to monitor the parking situation and told the resident how to report new issues.
3. An insurance claim would be outside its complaints process and included a liability claim form for the resident to send to its insurance team.
4. Its relevant team said the ventilation system would cost between £9.46 to £63.94 to run per year.
5. For the bin area, it would conduct ad-hoc deep cleans and inspect the area monthly.
6. It offered the resident £75 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its grounds maintenance standards not being met.
7. In terms of lessons learnt, it said it created a monthly visit schedule for its surveyor to attend the building. It had made improvements on grounds maintenance and was closely monitoring this.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, and contact with this Service, he has raised concerns about the reasonableness of the service charges when grounds maintenance standards were not met. It is important to explain that this Service is unable to determine the reasonableness, level of and liability for service charge issues. The matter is better suited to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice for further information on this. However, this report will consider the landlord’s handling of concerns about grounds maintenance.
The resident has referred to an inspection completed in December 2020 and has said remedial work was recommended at that time. He has said the landlord did not complete the remedial work and is instead focusing on the installation of a ventilation system. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised the issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of matters arising. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time, 12 months, have not been assessed within this report.
The resident has said the landlord did not complete the remedial work from December 2020 and this contributed to mould damaging his personal belongings. He has asked the landlord to compensate him for his damaged items. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the upset that may be caused by damage to personal belongings, it is important to explain that the Ombudsman can not make decisions on liability for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, this Service will consider what the landlord did following the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.

Handling of concerns about grounds maintenance

The tenancy agreement says the resident will pay a service charge for which the landlord will provide a service. The landlord’s maintenance management policy from 2022, says it will work with residents to keep neighbourhoods safe and in good condition. It says it will:
1. Cut communal grass areas, shrubbery, hedges and maintain flowerbeds, and check and maintain shared facilities.
2. Regularly conduct inspections. To monitor its cleaning and grounds maintenance services. It explains it would conduct inspections 4 times a year and in response to concerns, amongst other things.
The resident’s concerns relate to the maintenance of hedges, grass, flowerbeds, weed growth and the bin area. These concerns were initially raised with the landlord on 25 March 2023. Following this, it took the landlord until June 2023 to conduct a site visit. While the landlord’s maintenance management policy does not include a timeframe for it to conduct an inspection, it was unreasonable for it to have taken 3 months to do this.
The landlord has not provided evidence to show how it monitored its grounds maintenance service prior to the resident’s complaint from March 2023. Its policy says it would complete 4 inspections a year, it has provided evidence of 2 inspections, from June 2023 and September 2023. Conducting 2 visits in 2023 was not in line with its policy, this was not appropriate.
It is noted that the landlord acted appropriately in completing work following its visit in June 2023. At that time, the work included cutting grass, hedges, weeding, seasonal flowerbed and cleaning the bin store. Within its stage 1 response, from July 2023, it appropriately apologised that its ground maintenance standard (to keep neighbourhoods safe and in good condition, as per its policy) had not been met and said it would remedy the issues over the next 2 visits. The evidence shows it completed work to the bin store in July 2023 and further work to the communal garden area on 31 July 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of concerns about grounds maintenance was not appropriate. It has not provided evidence to show it monitored the grounds maintenance services or that it conducted regular inspections prior to the resident’s complaint, as per its policy. When the resident raised concerns about ground maintenance it took 3 months to visit the area. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service. However, it is noted that it completed maintenance works at that time.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately recognised that its service fell short. It explained how it was monitoring attendance and completing extra checks on visit schedules and quality of work for grounds maintenance. It offered the resident £75 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. The amount of £75 falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. When considering this and what the landlord did since the complaint, it has offered reasonable redress. The compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
The resident has told this Service that he continues to experience issues with grounds maintenance. This Service has not been provided with evidence to show the issues are the same, however a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about ongoing issues.

Handling of concerns about parking

The landlord’s maintenance management policy explains how parking spaces must be used and says that when a parking scheme is in operation, resident’s must only park with a valid permit. The policy allows the landlord to appoint a company to ensure effective management of parking.
Within the resident’s complaint from 24 May 2023 he told the landlord that another vehicle had used his parking space and/or the visitors parking space. He said this was causing him significant inconvenience. It is unclear when the resident’s parking space was used. However, within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had appointed a company to monitor the car park and issue fines to vehicles not displaying a permit. It also said how it would write to all resident with information on how to park. The landlord’s attempts to manage the parking situation were appropriate and in line with its policy.
In July 2023 the landlord was made aware of 2 parking issues. Here it spoke to another landlord explaining how the area was private land and should not be used by the other landlord’s tenants for parking. It also spoke to its contractor about the removal of sand from a parking bay. The landlord’s actions were quick and reasonable in the circumstances.
It is noted that the resident also contacted the other landlord directly about parking issues. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it repeated how it would monitor the car park, explained how it had contacted the other landlord who had written to its tenants about parking and told the resident to continue to report new issues. This was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of concerns about parking was appropriate. It appointed a company to monitor the car park, liaised with other landlords about parking and kept the resident reasonably updated with its approach. It acted in line with its policy and there was no maladministration.

Handling of reports of mould at the property

The landlord’s damp and mould standard operating procedure says when it receives a report of damp and mould it aims to contact the resident by the next working day and arrange an inspection. It will form and implement an action plan for resolution and keep the resident updated on the progress of works.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it is responsible to keep in a reasonable state of repair the inside walls and ceilings, amongst other things. It says it will maintain any installations it has provided, including ventilation fans. The policy explains that for a routine repairs (non-emergency) it aims to complete the repair within 20 working days and where this is not possible it will keep the resident updated. The policy says it will prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents where the repair is relevant to their additional needs.
As mentioned previously within this report, the Ombudsman will not assess the events following the landlord’s inspection from December 2020. However, it is noted that the landlord completed mould treatment in June 2021. It is unclear when the resident made further reports of mould. The evidence shows the landlord applied mould treatment on 28 February 2023 and 13 April 2023. It was unable to gain access for a March 2023 appointment and attended in April 2023. The landlord’s actions here were appropriate.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the property on 2 March 2023, this was appropriate. Its inspection noted mould on the ceiling and recommended changes to the bathroom fan, kitchen fan, and the installation of a ventilation system. The inspection report made no recommendations for further remedial works. When considering the timeframe from its inspection in 2020, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its most recent inspection from March 2023.
Following the inspection from March 2023, the landlord installed kitchen and bathroom fans on 13 April 2023. This was appropriate. However, the evidence shows roof vents for the fans were not installed until 31 May 2023. It is unclear why there was a delay in installing the roof vents, however it was reasonable for the landlord to have installed the fans in April 2023, and on balance, this would have helped to manage the internal condition of the property. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In March 2023, the resident asked questions about the costs of running the recommended ventilation system. Within its response, the landlord referred the resident to its Financial Inclusion team, this was reasonable in the circumstances. After discussions with the Financial Inclusion team, the landlord offered the resident a voucher to cover the running costs of the ventilation system for 3 years. It appropriately explained this to the resident and said it would monitor the improvements and reassess the running costs after 3 years. While the resident declined the installation of the ventilation system, the landlord’s action was reasonable in it explaining the benefits of the system and agreeing to review costs.
Within the resident’s complaint from 24 June 2023 he told the landlord of “extensive” mould growth on his belongings. The landlord appropriately conducted a further damp survey following this, in June 2023.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response from 3 July 2023, it told the resident that its survey found the property was not affected by damp and there was no condensation. However, it said there was a lack of insulation in the loft area and repeated the previous recommendation for the installation of the ventilation system. While the landlord said, on 17 July 2023, it would complete the insulation work to the loft within 2 week, it did not do this at that time. Its repair log shows it completed this work in January 2024 and it did not keep the resident updated on the progress of works. This was not appropriate.
It is understood that the installation of the ventilation system remains outstanding. The resident feels strongly that the landlord should have completed work he says was recommended in December 2020 as he believes the issue is with the building. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint, it would have been helpful for it to have explained why it was no longer relying on its report from 2020, as it had more updated inspection reports. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord. Its communication could have been better and may have added to the resident feeling it did not address all of his concerns.
Within his contact with the landlord, the resident repeated how his belongings were damaged and how he should be compensated for these. The landlord appropriately explained, within its stage 1 and 2 responses, how the resident could make a claim against its insurance for damage to his personal belongings. It is unclear if the resident has done this. However, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of mould at the property was not appropriate. It took around 5 months to complete loft insulation work and missed opportunities to address the resident’s concerns about historic work, if any. It is acknowledged that while the resident may have been caused some frustration, the impact of the failings would not have had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s failing amount to a service failure.
However, the landlord did conduct inspections of the property and appropriate relied on the recommendations made. When the resident raised concerns about the costs of running a ventilation system, it appropriately referred him to its team for financial assistance. It agreed to cover the costs of the ventilation system for 3 years and to continue to review this. Had the landlord not taken the positive steps it did, the failings here would have been more serious.
When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and an amount of £100 has been decided as appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the timeframe to complete insulation work and for the landlord’s communication. This amount falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. Its policy says that if it needs more time, at either stage, it will explain why and agree a response date. Prior to December 2023 the landlord’s policy allowed for a complaint panel review.
The resident raised his complaint about grounds maintenance on 25 March 2023. He raised his complaints about mould and parking issues on 24 May 2023. The landlord failed to respond to the complaints within 10 working days. This was not appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the complaints on 5 June 2023 and said it would address the 3 complaints together within 10 working days. On 12 June 2023, it extended its response time to 3 July 2023. While it met the revised timeframe, the landlord took around 4 months to respond to the complaint about grounds maintenance and 2 months for the other issues. These timeframes were not appropriate.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 July 2023. The landlord said it would respond by 24 August 2024. However, it did not meet this timeframe either, this was not appropriate.
While the landlord conducted a stage 2 review meeting on 23 August 2023, it took until 7 September 2023 to issue its stage 2 written response. The timeframe of 2 months to issue a stage 2 response was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It exceeded its timeframe for a stage 1 response and repeated this in its delayed stage 2 response. This meant it took between 4 to 6 months to conclude its internal complaints process. It failed to acknowledge its delays and made no attempts to put things right. This would have added to the residents frustration with its service. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and a compensation payment of £150 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and is to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delayed complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of concerns about grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about parking.
2. a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of mould at the property.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £250, this is made up of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of mould.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to establish any ongoing issues to do with mould in the property. It should explain in writing to this Service and the resident, its planned approach, if any.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. pay the resident £75 compensation it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
2. Contact the resident about ongoing issues with grounds maintenance.