We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

Southern Housing (202410194)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410194

Southern Housing

25 July 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about damp and mould and related repairs for extractor fans, loft insulation and gutters.
    2. The resident’s reports about the front door.
    3. The resident’s reports about leaks and repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
    4. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The resident previously reported heavy mould in the bedrooms in 2022, and previously reported water ingress from the bathroom fan in October 2022 and June 2023.
  3. In late November 2023, the resident reported multiple repairs. He said there was damp and mould, the bathroom extractor fan leaked, and the front door stuck.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor inspected in early December 2023 and referred works to its contractor. These were to mould treat the ceilings and walls of the bathroom and bedrooms, replace the bathroom fan, rearrange loft insulation to improve ventilation, and unblock and clean the gutters.
  5. In January 2024, the contractor reportedly did partial mould treatment, but they said the bathroom fan was fine and recommended a roofer inspection, as the condensation from it possibly related to roof vent issues.
  6. The resident made a complaint on 29 January 2024. He raised dissatisfaction with the lack of a plan for damp and mould he had experienced for 10 years. He also said the contractor had missed appointments, not done the repairs, previously installed the wrong type of extractor fan in the kitchen, and not confirmed visits by email as requested.
  7. In late February 2024, a supervisor inspected. They noted damage due to water and condensation from the loft and identified works for the kitchen fan, bedroom and bathroom ceilings, and the front door.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 March 2024.
    1. It noted the resident complained about damp, water ingress from the bathroom fan, and the front door. It noted he had reported issues in November 2023 and its surveyor had sent a report to its contractor in December 2023. It noted this was followed up with a visit in early February 2024, which recommended a supervisor inspection, but said this was not raised with the relevant team. It said it had asked the contractor to arrange a date to complete the works.
    2. It apologised for inconvenience, frustration and upset the resident had been caused. It offered £80. This comprised £50 for time, inconvenience and trouble, £15 for failure to follow process, and £15 for communication.
  9. In mid-April 2024, the landlord escalated the complaint after the resident said that he had not received the compensation, other repairs were outstanding, and there was a toilet leak.
  10. In mid-May 2025, the resident made further reports about a toilet leak. He chased about the complaint and the repairs in late May 2025, when he also said the kitchen ceiling had collapsed due to the leak.
  11. In mid-July 2024, the contractor repaired the kitchen ceiling and said follow on works to paint it were required. The landlord says they also cleared the gutters and replenished loft insulation. Later in July 2024, it discussed the case with its contractor and internally queried the best course of action.
  12. The landlord provided a final response on 19 September 2024.
    1. It noted the resident complained about compensation, a toilet leak, the kitchen ceiling, mould, a sticking front door, water ingress from the bathroom fan, and lack of replacement of the kitchen fan.
    2. It detailed events for various repairs, which included leaks from May to July 2024, fans from June 2023 to January 2024, internal doors in 2023, damp from November 2023, and a roof leak in 2023.
    3. It apologised for its delayed stage 2 response and that stage 1 compensation was delayed before it was paid in April 2024. It said it had identified additional failings to those identified in its stage 1. It said it would review service improvements in respect to communication and review of recommendations.
    4. It offered a further £525. This comprised £60 for repairs delays, £40 for 2 missed appointments, £250 for inconvenience, time and trouble, £50 for its stage 2 complaint response delay, and £125 for failure to follow process, repeat visits, lack of responses, the resident having to chase, communication, and complaint handling.
  13. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. He raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould issues and the impact on health. He said 1 bedroom was unusable, so he slept at his partner’s or in the living room. He said his partner was severely asthmatic and no longer came to the property. He said the other bedroom, where his daughter slept, had to be repeatedly cleaned of mould.
  14. In April 2025, after contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord’s surveyor inspected and identified various repairs. This included works for the front door, the kitchen ceiling, the kitchen fan, the bathroom fan, treatment of mould, and loft insulation.
  15. In July 2025, the landlord’s contractor visited and provided a quote for works. The landlord has now approved works that include to install new front door, redecorate the kitchen ceiling, renew the kitchen fan, mould treat the bathroom and bedrooms, renew the bathroom fan, install a condensation trap to the ventilation duct from the bathroom to the loft, and lay loft insulation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident complained about a boiler and a pump in his January 2024 complaint. The landlord replaced the boiler in early February 2024 and he did not escalate issues with the boiler and pump in his April 2024 escalation. He also complained in his escalation about a hanging pipe issue that arose after the boiler replacement. The landlord detailed action it had taken and invited him to contact it if this did not resolve the issue.
  2. This investigation focuses on the resident’s other reports such as the damp and mould, front door and leaks, as those issues were the main focus of his original complaint, escalation and dissatisfaction to the landlord and Ombudsman.

The resident’s reports about damp and mould and related repairs for extractor fans, loft insulation and gutters

  1. The resident reported mould and water ingress through the bathroom extractor fan in late November 2023. The landlord noted he said the mould affected his partner and daughter’s health. It noted he also said “this matter has been ongoing for over 10 years where a surveyor attends and then nothing happens after.”
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s November 2023 report about mould by arranging a surveyor inspection and referring repairs to its contractor in early December 2023. This was timely and in line with its policies. Its records then say that partial mould treatment was done at a January 2024 visit the resident said was unannounced. It is not evident it has considered further action to treat mould until April 2025, 15 months later. This is not satisfactory. The resident said the mould affected his partner and daughter’s health in his original report. He said in April 2024 that the household would shortly include a baby. He also referred to mould multiple times in the 5 months after the visit.
  3. The landlord does not show it considered other aspects satisfactorily or fully in line with its policies and procedures for damp and mould. The February 2024 supervisor recommended to cut out plasterboard from bathroom and bedrooms ceilings for joists to dry. It is not evident it did or considered this. Its policies say it will monitor action plans, regularly communicate, escalate to a director if issues are unresolved for 6 weeks, and close cases after agreement with customers and when action plans are complete. It is not evident it did these. Its policies also say it will consider other measures such as dehumidifiers. It is not evident it did, although December 2023 and February 2024 inspections referred to a soaking wet ceiling and water and condensation damage.
  4. The resident reported that the bathroom fan leaked, and that the kitchen fan was unsuitable as it was a bathroom fan. The December 2023 surveyor identified that the bathroom fan required replacement, while the February 2024 supervisor visit identified that the kitchen fan required replacement. The supervisor’s visit also referred to condensation happening due to steam rising from the bathroom fan up to the roof vent. The contractor visited to replace the bathroom fan in early 2024 but did not do this. They said the fan leak was possibly condensation backflowing, due to a blocked roof vent, and recommended for a roofer to inspect. It is not evident this happened or was clearly considered.
  5. The bathroom and kitchen fan replacements, and installation of a condensation trap for the ventilation duct, are now part of works the landlord has approved in July 2025. Its contractor also recently recommended for soffit vents to be cleaned as these are very dirty and restrict loft airflow. This indicates action is now being taken about these issues, but this is around 17 months after actions were recommended.
  6. It is not satisfactory the landlord did not act sooner about the fans, or show it gave more timely consideration to resolving condensation backflowing from the ventilation duct. It failed to show suitable engagement after its contractor’s January and February 2024 visits, or after staff sought to internally discuss issues in July 2024 and August 2024.
  7. The December 2023 surveyor referred works to the contractor to rearrange loft insulation to improve ventilation, and unblock and clean the gutters. This is understood to relate to their findings that the bedrooms ceilings were soaking wet, and the February 2024 supervisor recommendations to cut out sections of the bathroom and bedrooms ceilings to allow joists to dry. According to the 20 working day timeframe for routine repairs, the loft and gutter works should have been done around 8 January 2024, but the landlord says the loft insulation was rearranged and the gutters were cleaned on 16 July 2024. This was a delay of 6 months.
  8. The resident says 1 bedroom was unusable and he slept at his partner’s or in the living room. It is not clear he told the landlord this to give it the opportunity to consider this, and it is not evident its surveyor or contractors have identified the property to be uninhabitable at visits. There is also no evidence such as a professional view to support the resident’s.
  9. However, it is evident that for the damp and mould, extractor fans, loft insulation and gutter issues, the resident experienced missed appointments, delays, poor communication, and distress and inconvenience. He also went to time and trouble and contacted the landlord about damp and mould issues on dates that include 28 November 2023, 14 December 2023, 5 January 2024, 29 January 2024, 5 February 2024, 17 April 2024, 29 May 2024 and 11 June 2024.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were therefore positive to acknowledge issues and award £605 total compensation, which acknowledged issues such as delays and missed appointments. However, this does not go far enough to recognise the issues evident. It has continued to fail to do the bathroom and kitchen fan works, failed to do other recommended works, and delayed in the July 2024 loft insulation and gutter works. It repeatedly fails to show it engaged with and considered reports, including during the complaint. It fails to show it followed its damp and mould procedure to monitor matters, communicate with the resident, and confirm that works were complete and resolved the moisture from the bathroom fan and loft.
  11. This is not satisfactory, particularly given the resident said nothing had been done after multiple surveyor visits over the past 10 years, referred to the impact on health, and mentioned at points that a baby would soon join his household. This investigation is unable to consider events over this timeframe, or the impact on health. However, the landlord’s handling, and lack of effective action over a long period, will have caused significant distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident. It will also have given him limited reassurance that its service was any different to the service he said he had previously experienced.
  12. The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about the damp and mould, extractor fans, loft insulation and gutters. The Ombudsman makes some orders, which include further compensation, given the repairs have remained unresolved for a further 10 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This takes into account what the landlord previously offered.

The resident’s reports about the front door

  1. The resident reported issues with the front door sticking in late November 2023. He said he had reported this in September 2023 and someone had said a part was needed. In December 2023, a surveyor visited but did not note issues with the door. In February 2024, a supervisor noted that the front door needed a new lock bar due to latches catching. In late July 2024, the landlord noted that the resident said the front door lock repair was still outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor inspected in April 2025 after the Ombudsman requested evidence for our investigation. They identified repairs that included overhaul or repair of the front door, as it jammed and required excessive force to open. Its contractor visited in July 2025 and provided a quote for works. The landlord has now approved works that include to install a new front door.
  3. The landlord’s response about the door was not satisfactory. The evidence shows that the landlord has failed to take any action for the front door from late November 2023, until it approved a new front door in July 2025. This is almost 20 months. This is a lengthy period of time given the evident issues with the door.
  4. As noted above, the landlord failed to show suitable engagement after its contractor’s February 2024 visit which referred to the door, or after staff sought to internally discuss issues in July 2024 and August 2024.
  5. The resident also referred to a lack of follow up after originally reporting the issue in September 2023. The records supplied do not contain records earlier than November 2023 about the door, but it is not satisfactory that the landlord does not show it considered this further.
  6. The repairs logs do not appear to record any repairs raised for the front door. As the resident made a report in November 2023, and the February 2024 supervisor made recommendations, raised repairs would be expected to be evident around these dates. The lack of these indicates issues with the landlord’s processes, and suggests it is possible its failings for the door extends further back, to September 2023.
  7. The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about the front door. The Ombudsman makes some orders, which include further compensation, given the front door repair has remained unresolved for a further 10 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This takes into account what the landlord previously offered.

The resident’s reports about leaks and repairs to the kitchen ceiling

  1. The resident referred to a toilet leak in his 17 April 2024 complaint escalation. He said he was having to put down 2 towels round the toilet a day. He said an operative had attended to fit a new ball valve, but they had been unable to, and had not returned the next day as he was told.
  2. The records that the landlord supplies do not refer to repairs raised for a leak until 15 May 2024, which was referred to the contractor the same evening. The contractor noted it did not receive the referral and instead attended on 16 May 2024, when an operative did some repairs, tested to confirm there were no leaks, and reported no further works were required.
  3. The resident reported a toilet leak again on 23 May 2024, after which an operative attended on 24 May 2024, repaired the leak, and reported no further works were required.
  4. The resident reported a toilet leak again on 28 May 2024, when it was also reported that the kitchen ceiling had collapsed due to the leak. The same day, an operative fixed the leak, noted to be the toilet waste outlet, and reported that follow on works were needed for the ceiling. The following day, the resident raised concern that the leak had been ongoing since the boiler install (understood to have been February 2024). The contractor attended for the follow on works on 12 June 2024, but the wrong trade was sent and the operative reported that a plasterer was needed.
  5. The contractor attended again on 26 June 2024, boarded the ceiling and noted they would return on 1 July 2024 to plaster the ceiling. On 16 July 2024, they plastered the ceiling and said follow on works were needed to paint the ceiling. The landlord internally noted this when discussing the complaint on 26 July 2024 and asked an individual about the best course of action.
  6. The landlord’s surveyor inspected in April 2025 after the Ombudsman requested evidence for our investigation. They identified that the kitchen ceiling plaster needed to be sanded down and then painted. Its contractor visited in July 2025 and provided a quote for works. The landlord has now approved works that include to redecorate the kitchen ceiling.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s May 2024 reports about a toilet leak within a day, did works to reboard the ceiling on 26 June 2024, and did works to plaster the ceiling on 16 July 2024. The response about the leak and works to reboard the ceiling were reasonably timely, but the works to replaster the ceiling exceeded the 20 working day timeframe for routine repairs by 15 working days. This is not excessive but will have prolonged disruption to the resident.
  8. The operative who plastered then said follow on works were needed to paint, and the landlord has failed to take any action to paint the ceiling from mid-July 2024, until it approved works to do this in July 2025.
  9. It is not satisfactory that the landlord does not show it has clearly considered or acted on this recommendation for 12 months. As noted above, it failed to show suitable engagement on matters, including when staff sought to internally discuss issues such as painting of the kitchen ceiling in July and August 2024.
  10. It is also not satisfactory that the landlord does not show it clearly considered references from the resident that the leak may have started earlier. He referred to operatives attending for a toilet leak in his April 2024 escalation, and suggested, in May 2024 correspondence, that the leak had been ongoing since a new boiler was installed (understood to be February 2024).
  11. This could have prompted more investigation to establish if the resident had experienced a repeated leak over a longer period. The landlord is expected to resolve leaks with as few visits as possible, and while the May 2024 reports were resolved in a timely manner, a repeated leak over a longer timeframe would have been less reasonable.
  12. The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about leaks and repairs to the kitchen ceiling. The Ombudsman makes some orders, which include further compensation, given the kitchen ceiling repair has remained unresolved for a further 10 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This takes into account what the landlord previously offered.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained in late January 2024, after which the landlord provided its stage 1 response in early March 2024. The resident escalated the complaint in mid-April 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response in late September 2024. The stage 2 response was delayed by over 4 months, which is not in line with the landlord’s policy to respond in 20 working days. It was therefore appropriate to apologise for this and award £50. However, both responses were limited in their investigation and response to the substantive issues raised. They also had limited impact in the progression of repairs.
  2. The March 2024 stage 1 response noted issues and said the contractor had been asked to complete works, but it did not address contractor or supervisor findings in January and February 2024 and how it was responding to these. It identified a failing as it found an early February 2024 recommendation for a supervisor visit was not referred. This is confusing, as while potentially delayed, the supervisor visit happened 2 weeks before the response, which it did not acknowledge. It should have clearly communicated the current status of issues.
  3. The September 2024 stage 2 response noted further issues and detailed events, but some of these were not relevant. It detailed events for a 2023 roof leak that did not relate to the current 2024 issues with the fan, roof vent, loft insulation, and mould and moisture to ceilings. It detailed events for internal doors in 2023 which did not relate to the reports about the front door. It referred to other issues, but apart from acknowledgement of failings, provided limited assessment of these.
  4. The stage 2 response again failed to address contractor or supervisor findings in January and February 2024 and how it was responding to these. It did not acknowledge that multiple works and recommendations had not been done, or provide commitments to progress them. The landlord should take the opportunities presented by its complaints procedure to effectively acknowledge and resolve issues, but it is not evident that it did this in any meaningful way, leading to multiple issues remaining unresolved. This was not in line with good practise or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  5. The landlord was positive to award compensation but it is unclear this was always in line with policy. Its compensation matrix says it awards amounts of £250 for inconvenience, time and trouble where there has been delays, medium impact, but no permanent consequences, up to 3 months. The landlord awarded this in September 2024, when the original repairs reports were in November 2023 and the complaint was in January 2024. These are 8 to 10 months before the September 2024 stage 2 response, which means £450 for this aspect may have been applicable according to the matrix.
  6. The landlord failed to take advantage of the certainty and clarity that effective investigation and response via the complaint procedure can bring to a resident. It is unclear it followed policy in respect to compensation calculations. Its complaint handling will have further undermined the resident’s confidence and delayed resolution for some issues. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and to order some further compensation. This takes into account what the landlord previously offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould and related repairs for extractor fans, loft insulation and gutters.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the front door.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about leaks and repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks:
    1. arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a director for its poor handling of his repairs and complaint.
    2. pay the resident £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he will have been caused by the handling of the issues identified. This comprises £500 for the damp and mould, extractor fans, loft insulation and gutters, £100 for the front door, £100 for the leaks and kitchen ceiling, and £100 for the complaint handling. This is in addition to the £605 it previously awarded, which it should pay if it has not already.
  2. The landlord must, within 4 weeks, write to the resident with:
    1. a summary of the works it has recently approved.
    2. appointments it has agreed with him to complete them.
    3. details of an action plan, in line with its damp and mould procedure, of how it will monitor that the works are completed, monitor how the works impact the damp and mould issues, and maintain contact with him in respect to this.
  3. The landlord must, within 4 weeks:
    1. review its contractor July 2025 recommendation for soffit vents to be cleaned as these are very dirty and restrict loft airflow, and consider if this is required.
    2. review the supervisor’s February 2024 recommendation for a roofer to inspect the roof vent that the bathroom fan duct leads to, and consider if this is required.
    3. review the supervisor’s February 2024 recommendation to cut out plasterboard from bathroom and bedrooms ceilings for joists to dry, and consider if this is required.
  4. The landlord must then write to the resident with the outcome to the above, any action it is taking, and an appointment it has agreed with the resident if applicable.
  5. The landlord must, within 6 weeks, review the failures to follow its damp and mould procedures to monitor action plans, communicate regularly with residents, ensure works are completed, consider other measures such as dehumidifiers, and consider observations on damp and mould issues from contractors. It should consider any additional improvements to its processes. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman with the outcome.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling, to consider any staff training needs to ensure that similar complaints are adequately investigated and resolved.
  2. The landlord is recommended to consider any additional improvements to its repairs practices, such as ensuring effective processes are in place to:
    1. raise all repairs issues reported by its customers.
    2. consider and monitor recommendations from surveyors and contractors.