Southern Housing (202412367)

Decision
Case ID	202412367
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat with his partner and 3 children. He has lived in his home since 1997. The resident told the landlord the flat was overcrowded and there was damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of overcrowding
2. the resident’s reports of damp and mould
3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding.
We have found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
We have found reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not address all the resident’s concerns about overcrowding, and it did not carry out the actions it said it would. It did not consider a management move in line with its policies. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord was delayed in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged its failings and recognised the impact and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered compensation. But the resident told us the root causes of damp and mould have not been resolved. This is a failure in service to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. But the landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it apologised and offered compensation that was appropriate to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report relating to the resident’s reports of overcrowding. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Action order The landlord must ensure the Housing Area Manager contacts the resident as promised in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that this action has been completed by the due date.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Action order The landlord must consider a management move in line with its policy. The landlord must write to the resident setting out the reasons for its decisions. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that this action has been completed by the due date.	No later than 08 January 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must undertake a damp and mould inspection to assure itself that none of the previously reported issues have re-occurred and to identify any new issues requiring attention. The landlord must produce an action plan to resolve any issues identified in the inspection. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident. The landlord must provide evidence that this has been provided to the resident by the due date	No later than 08 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider providing refresher training for all complaints handling staff to ensure all staff understand the time limits for recording, acknowledging and responding to complaints in line with The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should pay the resident the £695 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the failings it identified if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 May 2024	The resident raised his stage 1 complaint with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
3 June 2024	The landlord contacted the resident to request an extension to the complaint deadline to 10 June 2024.
7 July 2024	The resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because he had not received the stage 1 complaint response.
21 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: its management move procedure did not cover overcrowding it had undertaken a survey of the resident’s home it accepted the surveyor’s recommendations, but progress had been unacceptably slow it apologised for the service failure, the delayed complaint response and offered compensation
11 September 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 for a second time. On 21 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged this.
24 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it was unable to assist directly in relation to the overcrowding the damp and mould had yet to be treated and apologised its stage 1 complaint response was delayed because of a high number of cases but it now had a dedicated complaint inbox it apologised for the distress for the resident and offered increased compensation it had learnt from the complaint and had recruited more staff
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to this Service as there are issues which remain unresolved.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of overcrowding
Finding	Maladministration

On 20 May 2024 the resident told the landlord in his stage 1 complaint that there was overcrowding in his home.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response told the resident its Management Move procedure doesn’t cover moves due to overcrowding. It suggested mutual exchange options and to contact the local council. It also said it had asked a Housing Officer to contact the resident to discuss his housing options.
But the Managed move procedure does say “in exceptional circumstances we may discuss a management move with the resident where re-housing a household provides a solution.” There is no evidence to show if the landlord considered this.
On 11 September 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 and told the landlord “Overcrowding remains unaddressed… it exacerbates the damp and mould problem…the failure to provide alternative accommodation or offer a practical solution to this issue is a serious oversight.”
On 24 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it was unable to assist directly with finding a more suitable home and enclosed a housing options booklet. It also stated it had set an action with for the Housing Area Manager to contact the resident within 5 working days.
On 5 November 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said, “this contact has not occurred, and this lack of follow-through is unacceptable.”
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about overcrowding. It did not address the resident’s concerns that overcrowding was making the damp and mould worse. It failed to consider a management move despite its policies stating it could. Also, the Housing Area Manager did not contact the resident as it said it would.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

On 20 May 2024 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint and told the landlord about the damp and mould in his home.
On 9 July 2024 a damp and mould survey was carried out by a surveyor. The report stated:
1. the mould in the bathroom was due to condensation and there was an increased risk as window and trickle vents were closed
2. the area opposite the bathroom was used to dry clothes
3. the property was a 1-bedroom flat with 5 people living there and increased humidity would increase risk of damp and mould
4. it recommended a mould treatment to the tiles and ceiling in the bathroom
5. the mould in the kitchen was due to condensation and recommended a mould wash to the door
The inspection took place 36 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because this was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy on its website. The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy or its damp and mould policy to this Service.
On 15 July 2024, the landlord emailed the resident with survey notes and confirmed plans for a mould wash and bathroom fan upgrade, explaining how the new extraction system would work and advising on furniture placement.
On 16 July 2024, the resident acknowledged the explanation but raised ongoing concerns about the kitchen door, kitchen area, and bedroom, citing their frequent use and the impact on daily life and children’s health.
We recognise the situation was distressing for the resident. While we consider distress and inconvenience caused by landlord failings, personal injury claims are best addressed by the courts, which can rely on independent medical evidence. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or injury.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It gave details about the survey and what was found. This included the mould in the bathroom was caused by “insufficient ventilation, especially with clothes drying across the bathroom” increasing moisture levels. This wording could infer the resident’s lifestyle was to blame.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould “It’s not lifestyle” recommends “landlords should review…their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.”.
The landlord admitted progress was “unacceptably slow,” apologised, and issued an action plan for mould wash and ventilation works, with oversight by a case handler. However, no completion dates were provided—only “TBC”—which was unreasonable because 67 working days had passed since the complaint, leaving the resident without certainty.
The landlord acknowledged the service failure and the inconvenience and impact of the damp and mould on the resident. It offered £170 made up of:
1. £125 for the inconvenience, time and trouble
2. £15 for failure to follow its process
3. £15 for the resident having to chase the landlord
4. £15 for the landlord’s failure to respond to queries
On 24 October 2024, after escalation requests, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained delays were due to sending the works specification late to the contractor and prioritising severe cases of damp and mould. The specification was sent to the contractor on 22 October, and it inspected the property the same day.
The landlord again put an action plan in the complaint response with “TBC” in relation to a date for the works to be completed.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £455. This was made up of:
1. £350 to recognise the impact, inconvenience, time & trouble caused by damp and mould and the failure to raise the jobs after inspection
2. £60 for failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner. Inspection was carried out, but the repairs identified not completed
3. £15 for resident repeatedly having to chase for updates and not getting a clear direction
4. £15 for repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues
5. £15 for failure to follow process and not booking repairs with its contractor
The landlord did say it had learnt from the complaint. It had appointed a new surveyor to assist with the caseload. It was also in the process of hiring additional case handlers which would allow inspections to be booked in within its service level agreement.
The landlord’s records show the mould wash and replacement fans were completed on 13 November 2024. This was 127 working days from the resident raising his complaint and this was unreasonable because this was not in line with the landlord’s policies.
There would have been a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. But in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its failings, recognised the impact and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered compensation. However, the resident told this Service that the root causes of the damp and mould are still unresolved. This is a failure in service to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 20 May 2024 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. It said it would respond by 3 June 2024.
On 3 June 2024 the landlord contacted the resident. It said it needed additional information to respond to the complaint, and it needed extra time. It extended the deadline until 10 June 2024.
On 7 July 2024 the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint as he had not heard anything from the landlord. On 9 July 2024 the landlord’s records show it told the resident his email had been passed to the complaints team who would respond by 16 July 2024.
On 21 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the failure to provide a complaint response on time and offered £100 compensation. But this was 53 working days from the extension deadline of 10 June 2024. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
On 11 September 2024, the resident told the landlord for a second time that he wanted to escalate his complaint. On 21 October 2024 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request. This was 29 working days from the escalation request. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It offered apologies for the distress to the resident and increased its offer of compensation to £240. This was made up of:
1. £200 for failing to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint
2. £15 for the internal miscommunication from the contact centre not forwarding the stage 2 request to the inbox
3. £25 for its failure to respond after 2nd extension at stage 1
The landlord said it now had a dedicated complaints inbox which was managed by a senior complaints handler and a complaints manager.
The landlord was delayed in its complaint handling at both stages of the complaints process, and it did not apply its own policies and procedures. But the landlord apologised for its failings, offered appropriate compensation and showed it had learned from the complaint. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As mentioned in this report the landlord did not provide 2 relevant policies to this Service. The landlord should ensure its processes are sufficient to provide this Service with all relevant information.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor in this case. The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions. The landlord did not reply in all cases. The landlord should assure itself that its staff know service level agreements relating to communications received from residents.
It should also ensure its complaint handling staff know and understand the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s complaint response used language that could imply blame on the resident. It should ensure staff avoid wording that suggests residents are at fault. This will help maintain a positive landlord-tenant relationship.