Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southern Housing (202410354)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410354

Southern Housing

21 January 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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy is held in the joint names of the resident and her husband, who also lives at the property. The tenancy began in February 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, within a converted building.
  2. The resident and her husband have several physical and mental health conditions, including bipolar affective disorder, asthma, eczema, anxiety, and depression. The landlord was aware there were vulnerabilities within the household, at the time of the complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman previously investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in February 2023. The investigation found some maladministration (case reference, 202115880) in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. The landlord was ordered to pay compensation to the resident, for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. Of particular note, the landlord was ordered to:
    1. Arrange an inspection of the property, to review, and arrange necessary repairs to leaks that had reoccurred since the previous repair.
    2. Write to all residents in the building with an update and an expected timeline for competing repairs to the building.
  4. The Ombudsman’s determination was changed upon review in June 2023. But the orders referenced at paragraph 4 above, remained unchanged.
  5. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2023. The landlord issued the final stage 2 response on 3 July 2024.
  6. In summary, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about ongoing issues with damp, mould, and water ingress, following the Ombudsman’s previous determination. She suggested that the compensation previously received, did not adequately address the distress caused by her ongoing living conditions, or the impact caused to her health. She expressed frustration at the length of time it was taking for the landlord to identify and resolve the cause of the damp and mould. She referenced continued inconvenience due to the frequency of repairs. The resident said the landlord should find a permanent solution to the substantive issue and pay compensation of around £10,000.
  7. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaints at all stages of its internal complaint process. It endeavoured to put things right by offering an apology for failings it itself had identified, by setting out proposed next steps, and by making an offer of compensation. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,165, after the resident made further representations.
  8. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2024, because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s resolution and did not feel that the landlord was listening. The resident told the Ombudsman on 19 December 2024, that there was still damp and mould in the property and necessary internal remedial repairs were yet to be completed. She said the landlord should find a permanent resolution and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case. There are sometimes reasons why a complaint or parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. This report will consider those issues raised by the resident during the landlord’s internal complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in the final stage 2 response.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not reinvestigate matters that the Ombudsman has already decided upon in a previous determination. But this investigation may consider how the landlord handled the resident’s more recent reports of damp and mould, and the reasonableness of any subsequent offer of redress.
  4. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter for the courts. However, this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her husband by the situation.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 42.b of the Scheme, this investigation will assess the landlord’s actions between March 2023 and July 2024. This being 12 months prior to the resident raising the stage 1 complaint, through to when the landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response. Events that happened after the landlord’s stage 2 response may be referenced but will not be assessed.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the repair.
  2. The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth are considered as potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
  3. The landlord had a damp, mould, repairs, and serious health conditions   standard operating procedure, which set out the landlord’s approach to damp and mould. According to this procedure, where property conditions could have a serious adverse health impact on a resident, the landlord will complete a thorough review of the property. The landlord will communicate any initial temporary remedial works to the resident and will create an action plan. The landlord aimed to completed necessary works within 6 weeks of the initial report received. Action plans would be reviewed at 3-month intervals.

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

  1. The landlord wrote to all residents of the building on or around 13 March 2023, in line with the orders made in the Ombudsman’s previous determination, originally issued in February 2023. The landlord informed residents that it was carrying out roofing works to address water ingress and damp within one of the properties. It suggested that these works would be completed on 14 March 2023, weather permitting. It expressed an intention to inspect other properties in the building on 23 March 2023, to ensure that no-one else experienced similar issues.
  2. It was encouraging that the landlord had already attended the property several days before the Ombudsman’s previous determination was issued, had completed a damp and mould survey, and had identified and agreed a course of action with the resident. In summary, the landlord agreed to arrange a new inspection of the roof and complete any identified repairs. Within the property, it agreed to replace the sink and the taps, rehang a radiator, carry out a mould treatment, a stain block, and redecorate.
  3. It is not in dispute that multiple inspections and repairs were carried out thereafter by the landlord, in response to recurring reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in the property. In the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had carried out repairs to the roof, had capped off the chimney, had completed some rendering works, had resolved a hole in the kitchen wall, and had replaced the kitchen. It is understood that the landlord had decided to replace the whole kitchen because it could not find a new cupboard to match, after fixing the wall. This was fair.
  4. It is not in dispute that it had taken significantly more than 6 weeks to identify and resolve the issues with damp and mould in the property. This was acknowledged by the landlord itself at stage 2. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord also recognised that it had missed opportunities to bring about a timelier resolution for the resident. In particular, it accepted that it ought to have continued its investigation and should have carried out repairs more swiftly following the Ombudsman’s previous involvement. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failings.
  5. The landlord was clearly of the view on several occasions over the lifetime of the complaint, that it had identified and resolved the root cause of the issue, only for new damp patches to appear. This was unfortunate. But the Ombudsman accepts, it can sometimes take several attempts to determine the root cause of water ingress and find a lasting solution. To further complicate matters, damp and mould can sometimes be caused by several unrelated issues all at the same time, as was the situation in this case. In this case there were a variety of issues with the roof, the chimney, the external wall, as well as leaks from a neighbouring property.
  6. The landlord and the resident provided numerous email communications to this investigation, which give some insight into the challenges that surfaced in this case. These communications reference issues with contractor performance, which resulted in the landlord taking pragmatic decisions to source alternative contractors. New episodes of water ingress and damp caused repeated interruptions to internal remedial works, while the landlord carried out new investigations. As time elapsed, some internal works were completed but were quickly replaced by a new list of internal remedial works. The landlord also had difficulties accessing the neighbouring property to resolve leaks into the property. All of these factors would have impacted the landlord’s ability to deliver a timely resolution in this case.
  7. The Ombudsman has seen photographs of black mould on the walls of the property. It is understood that at times, damp and mould had been in most of the rooms and on occasion water had run down the internal walls. While the resident told the Ombudsman that she had been able to manage the mould mostly, understandably, the situation was still distressing for her. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident lost some enjoyment of the property over the duration of the complaint.
  8. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 response, that it must have been increasingly hard for the resident to live alongside ongoing repairs, given her mental health diagnosis. But in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have considered if there was any additional support that it could offer her, pending completion of the outstanding works. As a minimum, it might have offered to meet the resident to explore her needs and then acted accordingly.
  9. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered offering support and considering reasonable adjustments at a much earlier stage. The resident told the landlord on several occasions that her living situation was making her and her husband ill. The evidence shows that the resident cancelled at least 6 appointments on account of ill health, which would have caused some unavoidable delay in the landlord progressing works. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord showed empathy and was accommodating when the resident said she could not keep appointments due to feeling unwell. But in the Ombudsman’s view, given the frequency of the cancellations and the resident’s concerns about the impact on health, the landlord ought to have considered if there was a way to support the resident, so that appointments were progressed in a timelier manner.
  10. The landlord expressed empathy when the resident reported that her husband had tried to take his own life. But it did not signpost the resident, or offer any other support, other than temporarily postponing works. This was a significant concern, given the Ombudsman’s previous determination found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns. This suggests inadequate learning from the previous complaint, which was inappropriate.
  11. But the Ombudsman saw no evidence to suggest that the property was unfit for habitation. The landlord carried out at least 2 damp and mould surveys over the duration of the complaint. The survey report dated 2 May 2024, recorded the property as being fit for habitation. The Ombudsman notes that this was signed by the resident, which suggests that the resident was in agreement with this at the time. The landlord also arranged several mould treatments over the duration of the complaint, which would have mitigated some of the risk to the resident. However, it was not entirely clear when those treatments were carried out, from the evidence seen. This may suggest an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  12. The landlord made several commitments and offers of action at stage 2. Firstly, the landlord committed to completing the outstanding internal remedial repairs once it had replaced the windows. This was reasonable, given the windows were to be replaced 2 weeks after issue of the stage 2 response. The resident told the Ombudsman on 19 December 2024, that the landlord had replaced 3 windows to date, but works had stopped because the landlord had identified structural issues with the building. This has further delayed completion of internal remedial works for the resident, causing additional distress and inconvenience.
  13. Secondly, the landlord offered to install a dehumidifier and a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system in the property if the resident was in agreement. Such appliances can be useful in controlling moisture levels in a property and therefore help with reducing mould growth. The landlord’s offer was positive since the landlord had expressly recognised the likely impact of damp and mould on the household, given the resident and her husband were asthmatic. But the Ombudsman suggests it was unfair of the landlord to suggest these appliances had not been installed before because the resident had declined them.
  14. The resident did initially refuse installation of a dehumidifier in May 2023, due to the size of the machine offered. The landlord said it could investigate if a smaller dehumidifier could be sourced, which was fair. But the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord followed this up, which left the matter unresolved.
  15. The resident asked the landlord in September 2023, if it could provide her with a small dehumidifier, after struggling with her breathing. The landlord committed to investigating this. The resident then asked the landlord to contribute financially towards a dehumidifier of her own. The landlord offered to install a low voltage fan in the living room instead. This was not favoured by the resident, who maintained that she needed a good dehumidifier. The landlord told the resident that it had instructed its contractor not to install the fan, but did not confirm its position regarding the purchase or supply of another dehumidifier. Again, this left the matter unresolved.
  16. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord made an earlier offer to install a PIV in the property, unless the landlord was referring to the low voltage fan previously referenced. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had no recollection of the landlord offering to install a PIV prior to the stage 2 response but would be open to this suggestion if this were to be reoffered.
  17. Lastly the landlord committed to contacting the resident every 3 months to monitor repairs and to assess whether any further action was needed. This was in line with the landlord’s policy commitments. But in the Ombudsman’s view, it would have reasonable for the landlord to have committed to contacting the resident on a more frequent basis, given the known vulnerabilities within the household and the complexity of the repairs.
  18. In summary, the landlord recognised itself that it had taken longer than expected to identify and fix the root cause of the damp and mould. It accepted that reoccurring episodes of water ingress, damp, and mould in the property, had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It recognised that the situation had been made more challenging for the resident and her husband due to vulnerabilities within the household. It accepted that it got some things wrong and endeavoured to put things right by apologising, making commitments for further action, and by offering compensation. The landlord showed fairness by revising its offer of compensation after the resident made representations.
  19. But despite the commitments made by the landlord in the final stage 2 response, the substantive matter of complaint remains unresolved. The Ombudsman was concerned that the landlord did not support the resident with a dehumidifier when requested. It missed opportunities to offer additional support to the resident, despite being aware of the vulnerabilities within the household. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s final offer of compensation did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident over the duration of the complaint.
  20. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  21. As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £1,508.50 compensation, which reflects the loss of enjoyment of different rooms in the property between 13 March 2023 and 3 July 2023. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to compensate at a rate of 25% of the weekly rent over this period, less service charges. The Ombudsman makes a separate order for compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. This compensation is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and may be adjusted as described at paragraph 41 below, if the landlord has already paid the compensation that it previously offered.
  22. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, following issue of the stage 2 response. The landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident if failings are identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay compensation of £1,908.50 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £743.50, if the landlord has already paid the compensation that it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
    1. £1,508.50 compensation, which reflects the loss of enjoyment of different the rooms in the property between 13 March 2023 and 3 July 2023.
    2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The landlord must arrange to a face-to-face meeting with the resident at the property. During this meeting, the landlord will:
    1. Complete another damp and mould survey, satisfying itself that the property remains fit for habitation. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter, depending on its findings.
    2. Explain its proposals and the expected timeline for resolving the ongoing water ingress, damp, and mould in the property.
    3. Explain its proposals and expected timeline for completing internal remedial works within the property and resuming the window replacement.
    4. Establish if there are any measures that might be taken by the landlord, to improve the living conditions in the property, pending completion of necessary works. As a minimum, the landlord should consider supplying the resident with a dehumidifier.
    5. Discuss the resident’s ongoing support needs. The landlord must commit to providing any additional support, appropriate advice, or any reasonable adjustments that the parties may agree.
    6. Agree a comprehensive action plan with the resident, setting out any actions agreed by the parties during the meeting, with timescales for action. The action plan must also detail the steps the landlord will take to remedy the water ingress, damp, and mould, and for completing the internal remedial repairs. The action plan must be issued to the resident in writing, within 5 working days of the face-to-face meeting. The landlord must commit to reviewing the action plan with the resident at a regular frequency, to be agreed by the parties.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, following issue of the stage 2 response. The landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident if failings are identified.