Southern Housing (202328477)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of leaks into her home, which caused damp, mould, pest infestation, and damage to belongings. The landlord explained the actions it had taken, confirmed completed work, provided timescales for the outstanding survey and offered remedy for its acknowledged failings. However, the resident remained dissatisfied, disputing the compensation as inadequate given delays and inconvenience, and noting that some repairs were still outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks into the property from her boiler and front door.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Reports of pests.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the property from her boiler and front door.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the residents damp and mould.
   3. Service failure in the landlords handling of the residents reports of pest control issues.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlords complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leaks into the property

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for delays in repairing the boiler and completing the survey and was correct to state it was not liable for damage to personal belongings. However, it did not address the front door leak, meaning it failed to resolve all aspects of the complaint, and it did not acknowledge missing its 28-day repair timescale for sealing the holes.

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to meet its 28-day timescale for addressing damp and mould reported in April 2023, as the survey was still outstanding when the resident complained in June 2023. However, it acknowledged the failing, explained the actions it would take, apologised, and offered compensation in line with its policy.

Pests

6. The landlord changed its position on responsibility for pest control, did not clearly respond to the complaint that the leaks had allowed pests into the property and did not provide reasonable compensation.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord is responsible for maintaining installations it provides for water supply, heating, hot water, and sanitation, including the central heating system. Its repairs policy requires emergency repairs to be completed within 6 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. If contact cannot be made, the landlord leaves a card and cancels the repair after 7 days without a response.
9. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said that the delay in responding to the leak had caused damage to items within her home, including skirting boards, door frames, flooring, and stored items.
10. In its complaint response, the landlord could not verify four missed appointments mentioned by the resident. It offered £40 discretionary compensation for two missed appointments, although it is unclear what these relate to. It asked the resident to provide dates and times for further investigation, but the evidence does not show this was provided. Records do not show any further missed appointments, so the landlord responded appropriately based on the information available.
11. The landlord acknowledged that a survey appointment did not go ahead and committed to carrying out a survey by 2 January 2024. It apologised and offered £60 for this oversight. The survey was to inspect the leak, damp, and mould. The evidence shows that the survey went ahead and works were raised following this.
12. The landlord acknowledged delays partly due to unclear instructions for booking follow-up repairs. It apologised and offered £15 for miscommunication. It considered many issues unforeseen and did not view this as a service failure but recognised persistent boiler problems. It advised the resident to claim for damaged belongings through insurance but agreed to replace damaged flooring as a goodwill gesture.
13. The landlord offered a total of £384.69 in compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble related to its handling of the boiler leak and damp and mould. This amount included £15 for miscommunication, £250 for inconvenience, £60 for a missed survey appointment, and £19.96 for loss of hot water. The compensation amount offered correctly matched the landlord’s compensation policy for its handling of the boiler leak and damp and mould.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy allows payment for quantifiable loss where evidence is provided and excludes damage to belongings, which should be claimed through home contents insurance. It therefore correctly advised the resident in line with its compensation policy.
15. On 10 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that the front door leak was still outstanding. Repair records show that operatives attended on 17 and 30 July 2024to repair the door but there was no access.
16. Operatives attended in October 2023 and offered sandbags to assist with the door leak. In September, the resident continued to report the door leak and said further damage occurred, and that she had to purchase a humidifier. Work to repair the front door leak was booked for 11 September 2024, though it is unclear if any work took place. Internal emails in January 2025 show the door repair was still outstanding, and there are no records beyond this.
17. As the resident first reported the front door leak in April 2023, the landlord did not respond within its 28-day timeframe despite repeated contact from the resident. This was outside its repairs policy. It did not acknowledge this delay or provide an explanation.
18. The repair records show that the landlord carried out repairs to the boiler, ceiling, skirting boards and new flooring. The resident recently told the Service that she was satisfied with the repairs but the front door leak remains outstanding.
19. The landlord provided reasonable redress for delays in repairing the boiler and carrying out the survey. It was also correct to say it was not liable for damage to personal belongings. However, its response was unreasonable as:
    1. It did not address the front door leak and by not doing so meant it did not resolve all the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states all elements of a complaint must be considered and responded to.

20. As a result of the leak, the resident reported damp and mould within her home on 30 April 2023. The landlord raised a job to inspect damp and mould in May 2023, but records show this did not take place. Later that month, the resident chased the landlord and internal emails show the landlord contacted its surveying team.
21. In June 2023, the resident raised the mould issue again in her complaint, saying there was mould under the flooring. The landlord advised that a mould specialist would attend within 10 days, but this did not happen. The resident submitted photographs and chased the landlord again in September and October 2023.
22. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will assess each case at the point of enquiry and prioritise them based on resident needs and its hazard assessment. It commits to responding to all reports within the timescales set out in its standard operating procedure. Its responsive repairs policy requires repairs to be completed within 28 days. An inspection should be undertaken within 10 working days, and any necessary works completed within six weeks of the initial report.
23. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it had not responded to the damp and mould reports and committed to carrying out a survey by 2 January 2024 alongside inspecting the leak. It apologised and offered £60 for failing to book this appointment. The records show that the survey took place on 2 January 2024 and identified work.
24. In her escalated complaint, the resident confirmed that the landlord had replaced the kitchen flooring but said she believed mould remained under other flooring and damp was still present in the living room. She was dissatisfied with the compensation offered and felt it was inadequate due to the delay of about five months.
25. Internal landlord emails from January 2024 show there were no further reports of damp and mould at that time, but there appeared to be water ingress from the original leak and repairs were raised.
26. In its final complaint response in June 2024, the landlord said it was monitoring damp and mould and would return within three months. The resident recently informed the Ombudsman that damp and mould issues have now been resolved.
27. There were failings by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould made in April 2023. The survey was still outstanding at the time of the resident’s complaint in June 2023, which was outside its 28-day timescale set out in its damp and mould policy. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it offered reasonable redress by:
    1. Acknowledging its failings.
    2. Explaining what action it would take to resolve the issue.
    3. Apologising.
    4. Offering £60 compensation which matched its compensation policy for the delay and nature of the failing.

28. The resident reported a pest infestation on 31 October 2023 and believed it was linked to the leak. She chased this several times, and the landlord said it raised a job for pest control in November 2023. Although it is unclear if this ever took place.
29. The resident appointed her own pest control due to the delay in the landlords response, which attended on 8 January 2024 and confirmed a minor mice infestation. It recommended proofing holes to prevent rodents from returning. Follow-up visits took place on 23 January and 5 February 2024.
30. In her escalated complaint in March 2024, the resident complained that the leak into the flooring had allowed pests into her home.
31. In its final complaint response, the landlord said the resident had confirmed the issue was now resolved. It explained its pest control policy had recently changed and it would not always attend pest issues. It advised the resident to contact the service centre if the issue recurred. However, it did not specifically address the issue she raised about pests entering because of the leak problem and did not recognise that it had originally said it would arrange a pest inspection itself in November 2023.
32. Regarding any remedies and compensation, the landlord referred to what it had offered in its stage 1 complaint response and said, “I hope this will cover the costs of the independent pest control you instructed”. Given that the pest issue was not part of the original complaint, it was not reasonable for the landlord to decide the original compensation also addressed its poor service in relation to the escalated complaint. By not clearly responding to the issue and offering reasonable compensation the landlord left the complaint unresolved.

33. The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it needs to extend the deadline by more than 10 days, it must agree this with the resident, explain the reasons for the extension, and confirm how and when it will keep them informed.
34. In this case, the resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 27 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 August 2023, which was significantly outside its 5-day target. It informed the resident on 19 August 2023 that it required an extension and said it would respond within 10 working days. However, the landlord did not meet this revised timescale and issued its stage 1 response on 7 December 2023. It acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 23 April 2024. It advised the resident on 22 May 2024 that it needed an extension and said it would respond within 10 working days. On 5 June 2024, it advised of a further extension and said it would respond by 10 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 June 2024.
36. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its stage 1 delay in line with its compensation policy. At stage 2, the landlord delayed its response but kept the resident informed and explained the reasons for the extensions. The landlord has therefore correctly followed its own complaint handling policy.

Learning

37. The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily. It recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.