Southern Housing (202345840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345840

Southern Housing

19 May 2025

Amended 17 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in July 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with his partner and 3 children. The resident has explained to us and the landlord that one of his children has support needs.
The landlord’s records show that between June 2023 and April 2024 it raised numerous repair requests related to damp and mould at the resident’s home. These included inspections, mould wash treatments, and related repair works.
On 8 April 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord by telephone. He said:
1. he was unhappy with a previous inspection at his home because the contractor did not inspect his loft
2. he had allowed the landlord time to arrange a further inspection and repairs but it had not done so
3. he wanted the landlord to fix the damp and mould problem because it was causing him depression and stress.
In a follow up complaint email on 11 April 2024, the resident said that the landlord was only carrying out mould washes and not solving the problem permanently.
On 12 June 2024, the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint as it had not responded. Subsequently, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It said:
1. a survey took place on 30 April 2024 and several necessary repairs were identified
2. damp and mould in the property must be inspected as the resident had reported mould mites causing damage to furniture and clothing
3. a contractor attended on 9 May 2024 and reported that a downpipe was blocked. The landlord had authorised works to unblock it
4. it upheld the complaint and offered the resident £450 in compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2024. He said that the same issues remained outstanding, and that his previous request for an escalation in June 2024 had been ignored.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 October 2024. It said:
1. the roof was inspected on 15 April 2024, and required works were carried out
2. it had scheduled a mould wash for 29 April 2024, and the resident cancelled the appointment on 26 April 2024 because he had carried one out himself
3. it had asked its contractor to carry out works at the property on 11 June 2024, and it had tried to contact the resident on a number of occasions for the works and been unable to reach him. It would ask the relevant team to contact him to arrange the works
4. its contractor had attended on 24 September 2024 and advised that there was no mould present in the property and roof repairs had already been completed. However the contractor did recommend a follow up visit from a supervisor to see what else could be done
5. it would aim to contact him again in mid-October to update him on outstanding works and upheld his complaint. It also increased its compensation offer to £655
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and when he contacted us in December 2024 he said the promised works had not been completed. To resolve his complaint he wanted the damp and mould issue resolved, and to be moved from the property. According to the landlord’s records, as of May 2025, damp and mould works for the resident’s home remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident has said the issues in his home have had a significant impact on his and his children’s physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been made worse, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, he may wish to seek independent advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Under its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord’s standard operating procedure for damp and mould states:
1. it will contact the resident on the same day damp and mould was reported or the next working day to discuss the issue and who will be handling their case
2. it will arrange for a visual inspection of the home within 10 working days of the initial report
3. if an immediate risk to health is found, it will arrange temporary accommodation
4. an action plan will be implemented to resolve the issue
5. damp and mould growth may affect a person’s health, medical vulnerability or condition
6. if the issue is not resolved within 6 weeks, the matter should be escalated. The escalation should set out why the matter has not been resolved, a solution for any barriers, a review of the action plan if necessary, and whether temporary accommodation should be provided if it has not been already.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that:
1. it will confirm a repair appointment as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident. It also states that it will aim to complete repairs in one visit
2. It will confirm time the time and date of any appointment using the resident’s preferred communication style, for example by phone, email, or text message.
The landlord’s replacement homes (temporary moves) procedure states that:
1. a temporary move will usually be necessary for health and safety reasons
2. the process will be triggered by a resident notifying it of a severe repair issue. If its unlikely to resolve the issue with a routine repair, a surveyor will visit the property
According to the landlord’s repair records, between June 2023 and April 2024, numerous repair requests were raised due to the reported damp and mould problem. The records show:
1. cleaning the guttering and checking for any defects on 16 June 2023, which the landlord states was completed on 12 July 2023. However, no evidence has been provided to support this.
2. inspection of loft insulation on 6 July 2023. No completion date has been provided
3. scaffolding to fit missing insulation into the loft on 8 August 2023, which the landlord said was removed on 25 August 2023. However, no evidence has been provided to support this.
4. requests for mould washes on 25 March 2023 for almost the entire property. This was marked as ‘practically complete’ on 12 June 2023, 3 months after the request for treatment was raised. A further request for mould washes was raised on 26 June 2023. 2 appointments were booked however; no access was granted. A new order was raised on 23 August 2023, and works were completed on 1 September 2023.
5. a downpipe inspection on 25 March 2024. This was marked as having been ‘carried out on a different order’
Our Spotlight report on Repairs states it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. When we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy.
The landlord’s records referred to above do not clearly show what actions it took to resolve the above issues. In addition, the majority of descriptions for each job contain records of the landlord’s contact with the resident, and no description of the work carried out by the landlord. We are therefore unable to assess what steps the landlord took to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property prior to him making his stage 1 complaint in April 2024. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
It is acknowledged that the landlord checked the loft insulation in August 2023.ation in August 2023, the landlord also confirmed in its complaint response to the resident that it had repaired the issue with his loft insulation on 15 April 2024, where the landlord stated that no further works were required. This position contradicts the information contained within the inspection report dated 17 May 2024, which stated that the loft insulation was contributing to the damp and mould issues. While it is not our role to determine what was causing the damp and mould, there was a difference of opinion between visiting contractors and/or operatives. This ultimately affected the resident and his family as it was not until 9 months later that this factor was identified.
The landlord’s contact notes show that the resident contacted it on 5 April 2024 because of mould mites in his home due to the reported damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 April 2024 for an update and to raise a formal complaint because he had received no response. On 29 April 2024, the landlord confirmed an inspection for 30 April 2024. This was a failure by the landlord, as it did not arrange the inspection in line with its own policy timescales.
The report from the 30 April 2024 inspection stated that:
1. moisture readings at the property were possibly due to a down pipe issue, and a contractor would need to ‘dig around it’ to check for any issues with a soakaway
2. partial condensation mould had been found in a bedroom, and was possibly due to a gutter issue
3. condensation mould had been found in the bathroom, and a mould and stain block was needed
4. condensation mould had been found in the landing. Mould had been treated their previously but returned, which could also be due to the guttering. A mould and stain block was needed
5. the resident had said a roofer attended the previous week and not corrected an issue with loft insulation. A contractor would return to do this
In a follow up email to the resident’s local MP on 1 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that all the identified works would be completed within 6 weeks.
Subsequently, a contractor attended the property again on 7 May 2024 to treat the whole property for mould mites. The contractor’s report stated that:
1. a date was being found for a plasterer to attend to fix plaster affected by damp
2. work was needed on the guttering
3. the downpipe was blocked, saturating the wall with water as a result
4. kitchen and bathroom extractor fans needed replacing
5. a new wastepipe was needed
On 31 May 2024, the landlord instructed the contractor to carry out the identified works. However, no evidence has been provided to show that these works were carried out following the report. On 12 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint because the damp and mould issue remained unresolved. This was despite the landlord’s previous confirmation that works would be completed within 6 weeks. This was unreasonable, and a clear failure to manage the resident’s expectations, likely causing him further frustration and inconvenience.
In its final response to the resident’s complaint in October 2024, the landlord said the resident had raised a request for a roof inspection, and an appointment had been booked in for 24 September 2024. This was reasonable, and in line with its timescales. In addition, it said that its contractor attended on that date and advised that there was no mould present, and roof repairs had been carried out previously. While it is possible no mould had been present during the visit, the landlord had previously noted in April 2024 that the resident was carrying out his own mould washes, and there is no evidence to show that this was discussed with him during the visit, which would have been appropriate.
The landlord also said it had given its contractor authorisation to carry out the works on 11 June 2024. It said its records showed that its contractor had tried to contact the resident on a number of occasions to schedule the works, but been unable to reach him.
Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states it is best practice for landlords to inform residents of appointments so that access can be provided. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it:
1. informed the resident by telephone, text message or email about all appointments in advance in line with its responsive repairs policy.
2. contacted the resident when it was unable to access the property
The landlord said that it was experiencing issues with access but has been unable to evidence this. Had this been the case, the landlord was entitled to access the property to inspect it or carry out repairs as long as it gave reasonable notice. We would therefore have expected it to have taken appropriate steps to access the property, for example, by writing to the resident and reminding him of his obligations to provide access.
As of February 2025, the landlord’s records confirm that issues with drainage and ventilation at the resident’s home remained outstanding, despite the issues being identified in previous inspections as potentially contributing to damp and mould. In its internal communications from the same time, the landlord has also confirmed that mould washes would not fix the problem, and the underlying causes needed to be addressed. In further communication with us in May 2025, the landlord has confirmed that required works remain outstanding.
We recognise that the landlord completed washes and some work to try and resolve the issues of mould in the property. However, there were several delays in the landlord inspecting the property and completing works to address the damp and mould as identified in this investigation. In addition, the landlord has confirmed as recently as February 2025 that there was still damp and mould present in the property. We therefore cannot conclude that the landlord has resolved the problem in line with its policies.
The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
In summary, we consider the landlord was at fault because:
1. visual inspections were not arranged within the required 10 working days as per its damp and mould policy
2. the issue was not escalated within 6 weeks as required under its damp and mould policy for issues unresolved during that time. The policy also states that the landlord should have raised an escalation setting out why the matter had not been resolved, a solution for any barriers, a review of the action plan, and whether temporary accommodation should have been provided. There is no evidence that it did this.
3. a loft insulation issue was reported in July 2023 but not resolved until April 2024, a 10 month delay
4. several repair requests raised in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould had no recorded completion dates.
5. multiple orders were marked as ‘practically complete’ with no confirmation of actual completion or effectiveness. Most records focused only on resident contact rather than actual repair actions
6. there is no clear record of any action plan being put in place or followed through, despite policy requirements
7. issues remained unresolved for over 2 years without documented escalation or rationale for delays
8. the resident had to follow up on outstanding work on more than 1 occasion
In terms of the impact these failings had on the resident, he informed the landlord at various stages that:
1. the impact the situation had on his family was ‘unforgivable’. This was when replying to the landlord’s stage 1 response to his formal complaint. In further communication after the landlord’s complaint process had concluded, he explained he was concerned about his children sleeping in a room affected by damp and mould, particularly as one child had support needs
2. resultant mites had caused damage to clothes and other items
3. mould had been treated before but kept returning, and no permanent fix was being carried out
This would have likely impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property. The evidence shows that the landlord’s failings made the associated impact on the resident worse over an extended period. The landlord failed to consider the household’s vulnerabilities and the impact to the resident and his family.
With consideration of our outcomes guidance, we have found multiple and cumulative failures by the landlord, which have had an impact on the resident. We have therefore found severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
Subsequently, an order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its failings as identified by this investigation. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
With consideration being given to our remedies guidance, we have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould for over a year, and the loss of enjoyment of the property as a result.
In its communication to us in May 2025, the landlord has shown that it has tried to contact the resident to confirm an appointment for outstanding works, but has been unable to. However, there appears to have been confusion over who was responsible for damp and mould work. There is also a reference to investigations being needed to ascertain the potential causes of damp and mould. In addition, there appears to be a breakdown in communication with the resident. Given that, and in line with our dispute resolution principle, to put things right, we order the landlord to complete a full survey of the property to assess the cause of the damp and mould and the outstanding issues the resident has complained of, providing all parties with copies of the report, so that all parties are clear on the required steps to fully resolve the problem.
A further order has been made for the landlord to carry out a review of this case to identify what went wrong, and what it can do to prevent the same failings happening in the future.
In correspondence with the landlord the resident said that some personal items had been damaged because of the damp and mould. The landlord has provided us with a copy of its liability form used to claim for any losses incurred. It is unclear whether the resident has submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer using the form. We have therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the damage to his belongings and whether he wants to pursue a claim.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. Landlords should respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024 which was 63 working days later. The landlord’s response was outside the timescale set out in the Code which was not appropriate. It also meant that the resident had to chase it for a response, and tried to escalate his complaint on 12 June 2024 because of this.
However, the landlord recognised the delay in its stage 1 response and offered the resident £100 in compensation, which was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for service failures of a short duration.
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 October 2024 which was 60 working days later. The landlord’s response was outside the timescale set out in the Code.
In its stage 2 response, it offered the resident £15 for a 10 day delay in providing the response, which was inappropriate, given the actual length of time as set out above. By failing to properly recognise the extent of the delay and likely inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord missed the opportunity to put things right for him.
We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation to recognise distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in his complaints journey. This is in line with our dispute resolution principle to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide the resident with a full written apology from a member of the executive team for the errors identified in this report
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,100, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the loss of enjoyment of the property
  2. £100 for the likely inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and the subsequent delays
  3. the landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed
3. arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the resident within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. assess the cause of the damp and mould and the outstanding issues the resident has complained of
  2. confirm whether the property is habitable and/or whether a temporary move is required
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding
4. The landlord must ensure it completes the works within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report and agreed with the resident. The landlord must retain records of its actions.
5. Carry out a review of this case to identify what went wrong, and what it can do to prevent the same failings happening in the future.
6. Contact the resident to discuss the damage to his belongings and whether he wants to pursue a claim.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with proof of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review its position in relation to loft insulation and ensure that all parties involved with assessing its suitability are aware of the criteria in which it must assess it against.