Southern Housing (202402427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402427

Southern Housing

30 April 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. Reports of roof leaks causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s request for permission to install a shed in the communal gardens.
3. The resident’s communication that her mother had died and her request for it to return the death certificate.
4. The resident’s service charge queries.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The property is a first floor flat with access to a communal garden area. The resident is a leaseholder. She purchased the property with her mother in 2004.
A representative has assisted the resident throughout her complaint to the landlord and referral to the Ombudsman. For clarity we have referred to both the resident and the representative as ‘the resident’ in this report.
In 2013 the resident asked the landlord for permission to install a shed. The landlord told her she could not install a shed as the garden was communal.
In 2019 the resident informed the landlord that her mother had passed away. She contacted it several times between 2019 and 2022 as the landlord had addressed its written correspondence to her mother. In 2022 she provided the landlord with her mother’s death certificate.
In early February 2024 the resident reported that the roof was leaking causing damp and mould to her property.
On 13 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord by letter. She said:
1. She had reported damage to the roof several times since February 2022. The leak was “compromising” the loft storage space and causing damp and black mould in her property. The landlord had not maintained the guttering, fascia or other woodwork for “years”.
2. The landlord had previously told her she could not have permission for a shed in the communal garden. It had allowed others to have sheds in the garden. She again asked for permission for a shed.
3. She told it in 2019 and several times since that her mother had died. She provided her mother’s death certificate in April 2022. It had not acknowledged or returned this. It continued to address all its letters to her and her mother. This was “cruel and heartless”.
The landlord did not raise a formal complaint at this time. It wrote to the resident stating:
1. As she was a leaseholder, she would have to instruct her own surveyor to inspect the issues. If her surveyor deemed there to be a structural issue it would review this.
2. Her mother’s name would need to be removed from the lease by solicitors.
Following contact from the resident we wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2024. We asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 23 July 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2024. It said:
1. It had received the resident’s complaint letter but it had not been sent to the correct team. It apologised.
2. The resident had reported a hole in the corner of the roof in January 2024.It inspected the roof in February 2024. It found:
  1. the fascia and soffits to be in “very poor order” and “significant damage” to the roof valleys and gutter. It also found dislodged tiles, cracked verges, and loose mortar.
  2. there had been water ingress to the resident’s bedroom wall. This was directly below the roof valley defect.
3. It would repair the roof on 1 August 2024. It would also arrange an appointment to carry out a mould wash to her bedroom. After it had repaired the roof, it would replace the damaged plasterboard and redecorate the bedroom.
4. If the resident wanted to install a shed, she would need to seek permission. It would investigate her statement that other residents had sheds in the garden.
5. It was sorry it had been writing to her in her mother’s name. It understood this was insensitive. It had now resolved the issue.
6. It upheld her complaint and offered her £295 compensation including:
  1. £60 for repair failures.
  2. £60 for communication issues.
  3. £50 for the delay in raising her complaint.
  4. £125 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 September 2024. She said it had not:
1. Mentioned the damp and mould in her lounge.
2. Updated her about the roof works.
3. Completed a mould wash.
4. Confirmed whether she could install a shed.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2024. It said:
1. It had repaired the roof. It had not identified any specific issues in the lounge. The remedial internal work was delayed due to delays in completing the mould treatment. Its surveyor was arranging this work. It was sorry it had not provided sufficient details regarding the roof repairs it had completed. It would feed this back to its repairs team.
2. It had responded to her enquiry regarding the shed in its stage 1 response. She would need to contact the housing services manager to request permission.
3. It had received the death certificate on 5 April 2022. It no longer had the certificate so was unable to return it. It asked residents not to send original documents as it could not guarantee it could return them. It was sorry if it had not advised her of this correctly.
4. It upheld the stage 1 findings and the compensation offered. It also offered a further £45 for complaint handling delays.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the following complaint is outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
The resident’s complaint referred to concerns regarding service charges between 2004 and 2012. We have not however seen evidence that she raised this as a formal complaint until 2024.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that she first reported issues with the roof in 2022. She did not however make a formal complaint until February 2024.
As previously mentioned, we encourage residents to raise complaints as soon as possible after the events. We have therefore considered any reports made by the resident within the 12 months prior to her formal complaint. The evidence does not show that she made any reports in this period. Therefore, we have considered the events from February 2024 onwards.
The resident has stated that she requested permission in 2013 to install a shed. Due to the length of time since this request, we have not considered the landlord’s response. We have however considered its response to the resident’s request to install a shed within her 2024 complaint.
The resident has complained that the landlord did not return her mother’s death certificate which she provided in 2022. While we accept that this issue took place more than 12 months prior to the complaint, the landlord considered the issue within its complaint responses. We have therefore also considered its handling of the issue.

Handling of reports of roof leaks causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. This includes the roof. While the loft area belongs to the landlord, the lease gives the resident a right of access to and use of it for storage.
The records indicate that the landlord inspected the roof in February 2024. They do not however clearly show when the landlord raised the inspection or what prompted the inspection. We would expect to be able to understand this from the repair records. This indicates shortcomings in its record keeping.
The resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that issues with the roof were causing her property to have damp and mould. She said her bedroom was the most affected room and that the wall in her front room was also water stained.
The landlord wrote to the resident after her stage 1 complaint. It said that, as she was a leaseholder, she would need to arrange herself for a surveyor to inspect the roof and the damp and mould. It said if her surveyor deemed the issue to be structural, its own surveyor would consider the report.
We do not consider that this was a reasonable response. The landlord was obliged under the terms of the lease to repair the roof. There is no requirement under the lease for the resident to prove that the repair is structural before the landlord acts. Nor is such a requirement outlined in the landlord’s policies or procedures. It is therefore unclear why it gave this advice. That the landlord advised the resident to obtain her own survey was therefore inappropriate and had she followed its advice she would have suffered avoidable financial expense.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the roof repairs would start on 1 August 2024. It went on to say that the facias might need repairing and it would follow the “Section 20 process” if the cost of the works was to be over £250 per resident.
Leaseholders have the right under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to be consulted if the landlord wishes to carry out major works funded by service charges. It must do so if the cost of the work exceeds £250 per leaseholder. It was appropriate that the landlord pointed this out to the resident but we consider it could have explained what the term “Section 20 process” meant. That it did not was a missed opportunity to demonstrate a customer-focussed approach.
The landlord said it would carry out a mould wash in the resident’s bedroom and, when the roof repairs were complete, would replace the damaged plasterboard and redecorate. As it had concluded that the damage was caused by issues with the roof valley, this was appropriate.
The records indicate that the landlord and its contractor tried on several occasions to arrange access to complete the mould wash. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that the resident was “not communicating” with it. We have not however seen evidence of specific attempts by the landlord to contact the resident. We would in such circumstances expect the landlord and its contractor to keep records of each attempt to arrange access. That we have not in this case indicates further record keeping inadequacies.
The landlord did however acknowledge in internal communications that it had “dropped the ball a bit” in chasing up the mould wash. This indicates that there had been failings on its part and the delay in carrying out the work could not solely be attributed to difficulties in contacting the resident.
In her stage 2 complaint escalation the resident said the landlord had not updated her regarding the roof works or carried out a mould wash. It confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been a delay in carrying out the mould wash and consequently the remedial repairs to her bedroom. It also outlined the repairs it had completed. This was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord she would clean the mould herself, as she did not want any chemicals to be used within her property. The contractor told the landlord it had asked the resident to allow it to treat the mould to prevent any impact on her health. This was appropriate, however we acknowledge the resident’s views.
The records indicate that the landlord completed repairs to the roof in early September 2024. This was over 6 months after the resident reported the leak and associated damp and mould. The reason for this delay is not clear. In the absence of a justification for the delay we do not consider that it was appropriate.
In October 2024 the resident reported the roof was still leaking and in November 2024 she said her wall was still getting wet when it rained. The landlord asked its contractor to investigate. This was a reasonable response.
The contractor told the landlord it had been attempting to contact the resident throughout December 2024 and January 2025 but she had not responded. It said it had left her voicemails advising it would carry out repairs to her bedroom on 20 January 2025.
On 16 January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord and asked that internal repairs be “put on hold”. She later confirmed again that she did not want the contractors to enter her property.
The evidence shows the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss access. It said it was concerned it would be unable to properly assess the roof without access to the loft space this may prevent it making the “best possible repair”. It was reasonable that it explained this.
The resident states that she has never prevented the landlord from access, and when the contractor left voicemails, it failed to provide contact details.
It is also important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. Therefore, as we are unable to determine the exact reasons, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the failure to carry out any further works required to the roof or to complete the internal repairs at this point.
We note that the landlord has the right under the terms of the lease to enter the property to repair parts of the building for which it is responsible. This includes the roof and loft space. The building remains the landlord’s asset and it also has repair obligations for other properties within the building. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to give the resident prior written notice to enter the property to complete the required work.
We acknowledge that the landlord’s ability to complete repairs has been hampered by communication difficulties. However, the evidence shows this has only impacted the landlord’s attempts since September 2024. This does not reasonably explain the earlier delays.
We consider that the landlord is obliged to carry out a lasting repair to the roof. If in order to complete this work it requires access to the resident’s property, it would be expected to consider what measures it needs to take to gain access.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Initially gave the resident inaccurate and inappropriate advice about her responsibilities in relation to the repair.
2. Delayed between February 2024 and September 2024 in carrying out repairs to the roof.
3. Did not keep adequate records of the repairs or its communications with the resident.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a shed in the communal gardens.

In her stage 1 complaint the resident said she had asked for the landlord’s permission to install a shed in the communal garden. She said it had refused her request but that several other residents had installed sheds.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that she would need to seek permission for a shed. We consider that it was clear that the resident was requesting permission to install a shed in her stage 1 complaint. That the landlord did not provide an answer to her request was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue.
The resident said in her stage 2 complaint escalation that she wanted the landlord to confirm whether she could install a shed. In its response it said she would need to contact the housing services manager to request permission. Again, we consider that the landlord should reasonably have responded to the resident’s request. It could have referred the matter to the relevant team and asked it to respond directly to the resident. Expecting her to make a separate enquiry was unnecessarily bureaucratic and caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
Overall, we consider that the landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s request for permission to install a shed. We therefore find there was service failure in this matter.

The resident’s communication that her mother had died and her request for it to return the death certificate.

The evidence shows the resident told the landlord in March 2019 that her mother had passed away. In April 2020, she told it that it kept sending letters in her mother’s name. She said this was “upsetting and cruel”.
We have not seen evidence that demonstrates whether the landlord responded to the resident at this time. However, later evidence shows that it did not act on her communications and resolve the issue. This was inappropriate.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said she continued to receive letters from the landlord addressed to her mother. She said this was “cruel and heartless”.
The evidence shows the landlord’s investigations into the complaint found that it had received the death certificate from the resident in 2022. It also found that because they had had a joint lease no legal action was needed. It updated its records to reflect that only the resident lived at the property. This action was appropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had been insensitive to address letters to the resident’s mother. It apologised for this and said it had resolved the issue. This was appropriate.
The resident asked the landlord in her stage 2 complaint escalation to return her mother’s death certificate. In its response it stated it no longer had the certificate. It advised that it asks residents not to send original documents as it could not guarantee that they would be returned but apologised if it had not advised her of this.
We have not seen any evidence that demonstrates that the landlord advised the resident not to provide the original document. We have recommended that it consider updating its standard letters and website to include this advice where relevant.
The landlord offered the resident £60 for “communication issues”. This appears to relate to its handling of this issue. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord has acknowledged that there was service failure in its handling of this issue. It has accepted that it was insensitive and apologised to the resident. It has also rectified the issue and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore find reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s communication that her mother had died and her request for it to return the death certificate.

Complaint handling.

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint by letter in February 2024. The landlord failed to treat this as a complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. The residents letter clearly met this definition. That the landlord did not raise a complaint at this time was a failing.
The resident reiterated to the landlord on 20 March 2024 that her letter had been a formal complaint. She asked it to respond to all the issues she had raised. The landlord again failed to do so. We have not seen any evidence that it responded at all. This was inappropriate.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint almost 6 months after she raised it. This far exceeds the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
The landlord failed to acknowledge in its stage 1 complaint response that it had initially replied to the resident’s complaint giving incorrect advice. It therefore missed an opportunity to apologise for this and put this right.
The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, as explored earlier in the report, it missed an opportunity to respond to the resident’s request for permission to install a shed.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said the roof would be repaired on 1 August 2024 and that it would arrange an appointment to carry out a mould wash. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do this. Had it carried out the mould wash and kept the resident updated about the roof repairs, this would have been a reasonable outcome. It did not however, and this caused the resident to escalate her complaint.
It took the landlord 25 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. While this slightly exceeds the 20-working day timeframe in the Code and its policy it apologised for this and offered £20 compensation. We consider that this was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord again failed to provide an answer to the resident’s request for permission to install a shed. Its insistence on her contacting another team was unnecessarily bureaucratic and caused her to invest avoidable time and trouble.
Within its complaint handling process the landlord offered the resident £340 compensation.
The landlord’s offer of compensation does go some way to providing redress for the detriment experienced by the resident. We do not however consider that the amount offered is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace its offer with £850 compensation. A breakdown of this amount is provided in the orders section.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof leaks causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a shed in the communal gardens.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communication that her mother had died and her request for it to return the death certificate.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in accordance with our remedies guidance for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850 which comprises:
  1. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of reports of roof leaks causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a shed in the communal gardens.
  3. £250 for time and trouble in relation to complaint handling failures.
3. If the landlord has already paid the £340 offered within its internal complaint process, this should be deducted from the amount ordered.
4. Arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to inspect the roof. It should then agree an action plan with her for completing any outstanding repairs.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider updating its standard letters and website where relevant to include advice not to send original documents.