From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southern Housing (202404977)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404977

Southern Housing

21 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
    2. Reports that she could not use her bathroom sink.
    3. Reports of damage caused to a kitchen cupboard and bath panel.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 1-bed, first-floor flat in a converted street property. Her 2 children also live in the property.
  2. The resident first reported water ingress, damp, and mould in her living room in August 2023. In December 2023 she reported that her bathroom sink was causing an “uncontrollable” leak into the flat below.
  3. On 9 January 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said on 30 December 2023 an operative had attended an out-of-hours appointment to resolve the leak from her bathroom sink into the flat below. She said the engineer who attended had caused damage to her kitchen cupboard and to her bath panel.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 12 January 2024. It summarised the issue raised in the resident’s complaint. It stated it understood she was also unhappy about the time taken to resolve a large area of damp and mould in her living room.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 January 2024 and said it would respond to her complaint by 2 February 2024. It apologised for the delay.
  6. On 2 February 2024 the landlord said it was awaiting further information before it could respond to the complaint. It said it would respond by 9 February 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 February 2024. It said:
    1. It had carried out repointing to stop the water ingress. It would replace the affected plaster and redecorate on 26 February 2024.
    2. It said all its operatives received customer service training but apologised for her experience.
    3. It offered £210 compensation comprising:
      1. £100 for time and disruption caused by the delay in resolving the water ingress, damp, and mould.
      2. £60 for the time taken to complete repairs to the cupboard and bath panel.
      3. £50 for inconvenience due to repairs to the cupboard and bath panel.
  8. On 22 February 2024 the resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said:
    1. She had been reporting the water ingress, damp, and mould since August 2023. She wanted an explanation for the delay in resolving the issue.
    2. She had asthma. Due to overcrowding she and her daughter were having to sleep in the living room with an “immense” amount of mould.
    3. She had to repeatedly clean the mould, this had aggravated her asthma and the mould kept returning.
    4. She had to use a dehumidifier and this had increased her electricity bill by £200.
    5. The wall was “oozing” something yellow and was “crumbling”.
    6. The mould had damaged her rugs and curtains.
    7. The landlord had not yet repaired the damage caused by the operative to her bath panel and kitchen cupboard. It had taken it almost a month to repair the bathroom sink.
    8. The compensation offered in the stage 1 response was not enough.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 April 2024. It said:
    1. It apologised for “significant delays and missed appointments” during its handling of the resident’s repair issues.
    2. It was clear that the initial repair of the living room wall was not up to standard. It had directed its contractor to return to do the work again.
    3. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the need for temporary repairs to the kitchen cupboard. Its contractor would return to seal under the units and install a backboard to prevent entry by pests.
    4. It apologised for the delay in replacing her bath panel. It was prioritising this repair.
    5. Its insurance policy limited compensation for personal items affected by repair issues. However, it recognised the impact of the situation and wanted to discuss a compensation package with her which would include the damage to her belongings and use of the dehumidifier.
    6. It upheld her complaint and increased its offer of compensation to:
      1. £450 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
      2. £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
      3. £30 for missed appointments.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue and brought the case to the Ombudsman in May 2024. She said she continues to experience issues with yellow stains on the living room walls due to the previous water ingress. The case became one we could investigate in January 2025.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord’s repair policy which was in place at the time of the events considered in this report did not outline target timeframes for the completion of repairs. Instead it said it aimed to complete repairs in “as little time as possible”.
  2. The landlord updated its repairs policy in December 2024 and it now provides target timeframes for repairs.
  3. The repairs policy in place at the time of the events of the complaint states operatives will protect all nearby surfaces when working and clean up afterwards.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould standard operating procedure states it will arrange an inspection within 10 working days of a report of damp and mould. It also says that it will carry out monitoring at 3, 6, and 12 months after it has completed work to resolve the issue.
  5. In March 2023 the landlord introduced its damp and mould action plan. This monitors its progress and performance against the 26 recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider claims for personal injury or liability within its complaint process.
  7. The landlord’s compensation framework outlines the following payment amounts for different service failures:
    1. Delays in completing a repair – £10 one-off payment, plus £2 per day to a maximum of £50.
    2. Complaint handling failures – £15 to £50.
    3. Dehumidifier use – £2 per day.
    4. Missed repair appointments – £20 per appointment.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould

  1. On 28 August 2023 the resident reported that there were large areas of damp and mould in her living room. She said this appeared to be coming from the external brickwork near her window.
  2. The landlord responded at the start of September 2023 and said its surveyor would inspect the issue on 18 September 2023. While it arranged the inspection within a reasonable timeframe, the records show the surveyor did not attend. This was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord to book another appointment.
  3. The surveyor carried out an inspection on 2 October 2023. They found rainwater ingress under the living room window and adjacent wall. The surveyor raised repairs to the guttering, windowsills, and cornice to ensure they were watertight. The landlord raised these works within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. In December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received any updates for a month. She said water was still entering her living room and that the issue was impacting her health as she had asthma.
  5. That the landlord had not kept the resident updated was an example of poor communication. This caused the resident further time and trouble in chasing for updates.
  6. In addition, we have not seen evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her health. This was inappropriate. We would have expected the landlord to demonstrate empathy and to prioritise the repair appropriately.
  7. The records show that the landlord chased its contractor several times in January 2024 and asked it to book an appointment with the resident to complete the repairs. It was correct that the landlord chased its contractor for an update, this is part of effective contractor management. We would however have expected to see evidence that it did so earlier and kept the resident informed. As it retained overall responsibility for the repairs, it should have been actively monitoring the situation. Had it done so, it would not have been necessary for the resident to chase the matter.
  8. On 16 January 2024 the contractor contacted the resident who was in hospital. It agreed it would carry out the external works while she was in hospital and would complete the internal works when she returned home.
  9. The records indicate the contractor erected scaffolding on 17 January 2024 and completed the external works on 23 January 2024.
  10. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident it would hack out the defective plaster in the living room, replaster, and decorate. It said it would start these works on 26 February 2024.
  11. The evidence shows the contractor did not attend as agreed to replaster and decorate the living room in February 2024. This was unreasonable and again caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord to resolve the issue.
  12. The repair records indicate that the contractor attended at the end of March 2024 to finish the internal works. The resident however advises that she continues to experience problems with the plaster in the living room which she states releases a yellow substance. We have made an order for the landlord to inspect and address this issue.
  13. Overall, it took the landlord 5 months to carry out works to stop water ingress into the resident’s property. It took a further 2 months to complete the internal works. This was an unreasonable timeframe, particularly considering the resident made it aware on several occasions that she had asthma. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress, damp, and mould.

Response to the resident’s reports that she could not use her bathroom sink

  1. On 28 December 2023 the resident reported that there was an “uncontrollable” leak from her bathroom sink into the flat below.
  2. The records show an operative attended on the same day but could not find the stopcock to turn off the water. He therefore had to cap off the water supply to the bathroom sink. We acknowledge that this action was required to stop the leak into the flat below.
  3. Because the water supply to the bathroom sink was capped off the resident reported that she and her children were having to use the bath to brush their teeth.
  4. The landlord arranged an appointment to repair the bathroom sink on 9 January 2024. It then cancelled this appointment. It booked a new appointment for 19 January 2024 but this was also cancelled due to staff absence.
  5. The records indicate that the landlord carried out the follow-on repairs to the bathroom sink on 15 February 2024.
  6. While the repairs policy in place did not contain any target timescales for repairs, it said it would complete repairs in “as little time as possible”. It took the landlord 7 weeks to complete the follow-on repair to the sink. We do not consider that this was reasonable or in line with its own policy. This was a failing.
  7. Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in bringing the bathroom sink back into use. This caused the family inconvenience as they had to use the bath to brush their teeth. The landlord cancelled several appointments and this caused the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she could not use her bathroom sink.

Response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a kitchen cupboard and bath panel

  1. The resident reports that during his search for the stopcock, the operative attending to the leak from her bathroom sink caused damage to a kitchen cupboard and to the bath panel.
  2. The resident reported also that the operative left the property in a “mess” which she had to clear up. This is not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states operatives will clean up after themselves. That the resident had to do so was therefore unreasonable.
  3. The resident has stated that the operative told her he would raise follow-on works to repair the kitchen cupboard and bath panel. We cannot confirm this as the landlord does not have a record of anything discussed during the appointment. We would however consider it to be standard practice for an operative to report any required follow-on works to the landlord so it could raise and complete the repairs. That no such follow-on works were raised until the resident contacted the landlord herself to raise them, was unreasonable and caused her unnecessary time and trouble.
  4. While the resident confirms that the landlord has completed the repairs to the bath panel and kitchen cabinet, we have been unable to find a record of the completion date of the works. This indicates inadequacies in the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response suggests that it had not yet completed the repairs to the kitchen cabinet and bath panel. This was 15 weeks after the items were damaged. This was an unreasonable delay.
  6. Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in carrying out follow-on repairs to the bath panel and kitchen cabinet. This caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble in chasing for the work to be done. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to a kitchen cupboard and bath panel.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. It took the landlord 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This exceeds the 10 working days timeframe contained in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s own policy.
  2. While it did contact the resident twice to request an extension of the response timeframe, it failed to adhere to the new deadline it set itself. This was unreasonable. That it did not acknowledge this in its response or offer an apology or redress for this was also a failing.
  3. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged its failings in resolving the resident’s repair issues. It was right that it did so. It also said it would resolve the outstanding repairs and provided an appointment date.
  4. Had the landlord then attended as agreed and carried out the repairs, this would have been reasonable. However, it did not. It therefore mismanaged the resident’s expectations and caused her further avoidable disappointment.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £210 in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that £100 was for the issues resolving the water ingress, damp and mould. It also said that £110 was for its handling of the repairs following its response to the leak into the flat below. It is not clear how the landlord calculated its offer of compensation. We cannot therefore determine whether its offer was proportionate.
  6. It took the landlord 32 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. It did however acknowledge this within its response and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was in line with its compensation framework and we consider it was reasonable.
  7. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that there had been service failures and apologised for this. It was right that it did so. It did not however give any explanation for the delays in its repairs service.
  8. The Code states that landlords must address all issues raised in the complaint. One of the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint was because she wanted to know why the delays had occurred. It was therefore unreasonable and a failure to adhere to the Code that the landlord did not address this.
  9. Within her stage 2 escalation the resident also stressed that she had asthma and that the damp and mould had impacted her health. The landlord did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns about her health and this was inappropriate. This was a further failing to adhere to the Code.
  10. Within her stage 2 escalation the resident mentioned damage caused to her belongings. The landlord addressed this within its response. It explained that she could not claim on its insurance as its policy did not cover damage to residents’ personal items. It did however say it was keen to discuss compensation for this, along with her use of a dehumidifier with her.
  11. That the landlord was open to discussing compensation with the resident was positive. The resident however advises that it has not contacted her to discuss compensation for these issues and we have not however seen evidence of such discussions. That the landlord did not do as it said it would, was unreasonable. We have ordered the landlord to discuss compensation for her damaged items with the resident.
  12. In its final complaint response the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £530. The landlord did not clearly explain the breakdown of this amount. It is therefore again unclear how it calculated the figure.
  13. We do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident and her family.
  14. In relation to the water ingress, damp and mould, it took the landlord 22 weeks to carry out the external works and a further 8 weeks to complete the internal works. We consider the landlord should pay the resident £430 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience due to delays in it resolving this issue.
  15. It took the landlord 7 weeks to put the bathroom sink back into use. This caused the resident and her family inconvenience. We consider the landlord should pay the resident £110 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to delays in its handling of this repair.
  16. Due to record keeping inadequacies it is unclear how long it took the landlord to resolve the follow-on repairs to the kitchen cupboard and bath panel. The stage 2 complaint response indicates it was at least 15 weeks. We therefore consider the landlord should pay the resident £220 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to delays in its handling of these repairs.
  17. The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for 3 missed repairs appointments. This was not in line with its compensation framework which states it will pay £20 for each missed appointment. We have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation for the missed appointments to £60.
  18. The landlord’s compensation framework also states it will pay residents £2 per day when they have to use a dehumidifier. It has not refuted that the resident needed to use a dehumidifier for the period she was waiting for it to resolve the water ingress, damp and mould. We therefore consider it should pay the resident £364. This is £2 per day from 28 August 2023 to 26 February 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she could not use her bathroom sink.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a kitchen cupboard and bath panel.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,284 which comprises:
      1. £430 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
      2. £364 for use of a dehumidifier during its handling of her reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
      3. £60 in relation to missed appointments during its handling of her reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
      4. £110 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to its response to the resident’s report that she could not use her bathroom sink.
      5. £220 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to its handling of the follow-on repairs to the kitchen cupboard and bath panel.
      6. £100 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling.
      7. This amount includes the landlord’s offer of £530 made in its stage 2 complaint response. If this has already been paid the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £754.
    3. Inspect the living room walls to determine whether there are further issues causing the yellowing of the plaster and paintwork. It must provide the resident with an update and estimated completion date of any required works within 2 weeks of the inspection.
    4. Refer the issue of damage caused to the resident’s furnishings to its insurers. If it is unable to do so, it should consider whether it can pay the resident compensation for damage to her belongings as suggested in its stage 2 complaint response. It should contact the resident to discuss this matter within 4 weeks of the report.