Southern Housing (202423456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423456

Southern Housing

30 June 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 the resident’s report of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in August 2006. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 2 adult children. The resident has informed this Service that she has COPD which damp and mould can affect. She has also told us that her son has a learning disability and a mental health condition and her daughter has both physical and mental health conditions. The landlord is a housing association and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or the household members.
4. In 2020 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord took steps to rectify this. On 3 November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould across the rear wall of her property. The landlord inspected the property on 15 November 2023 and arranged for its contractor to inspect and raise any identified repairs. The contractor inspected the property on 29 November 2023 and submitted its recommendations to the landlord on the same date.
5. On 25 March 2024 the resident complained that she had not heard anything from the landlord or the contractor about what the next steps were. She said her walls were damp and crumbling and the damp had caused the laminate flooring to lift.
6. On 25 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It confirmed it had found high levels of damp at its inspection on 15 November 2023 and had asked its contractor to attend. The contractor attended on 29 November 2023. It said the dampness was due to rainwater running down the external brickwork. Following this it had made recommendations to the landlord which it said would resolve the damp. The landlord confirmed it had approved the works and it would meet the contractor at the property on 26 April 2024. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in getting to this point and the resident had to chase the landlord and contractor to get things actioned. It apologised for the poor service and offered £75 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
7. On 25 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she disagreed with the findings in its stage 1 complaint response regarding the cause of the damp. She also said the compensation offered had not recognised the impact the situation had upon her and her family. She referred to the contractor damaging her window blinds and the damp damaging the flooring. She said her son had to stay with grandparents because he could not cope with the disruption in the property. She also said she was unable to visit her ill father due to having to be at home all the time for the contractors.
8. On 7 November 2024 the resident complained to the landlord again. She said its surveyor had told her the repairs were in hand but they were still outstanding from March 2024. She had requested updates from the landlord but had not heard anything back and the damp and mould was getting worse.
9. On 14 January 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It recognised there had been delays in completing the repairs to rectify the damp and mould, the roof leak, and replacement of the laminate flooring. It accepted there had been a breakdown of communication between its repair team and the contractor and it had not kept the resident updated during this time and some of the repairs remained outstanding. It apologised that its flooring contractor had failed to complete the repairs. It said it had instructed another contractor to inspect the property on 14 January 2025 and send its finding to the landlord. In relation to the blinds, it said it had fully lined the reveals to the windows, which meant the blinds no longer fitted. It said it would replace these when it had completed the external repairs. The landlord also accepted it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its timescales and it had extended the timescale on multiple occasions. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £305 to recognise the failures identified, which it broke down as follows:
   1. £125 – impact, inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays
   2. £60 – failure to repair by the 2nd appointment
   3. £15 – lack of updates
   4. £50 – unsatisfactory handling of the resident’s complaint
   5. £25 – failure to respond by 2nd complaint extension
10. In communication with this Service the resident said the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had been very stressful. She had been going through medical assessments at the time and having to repeatedly chase the landlord and contractor for updates made the situation worse. She said the repairs took too long. She also said the repairs affected her son, who has autism and mental health issues, to the point where he had to go and stay with family members to get away. As an outcome she would like the landlord to increase its compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. We have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint from March 2024, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 14 January 2025. This is because although we are aware the resident reported damp and mould issues in her property in 2020, there is no evidence to show that the resident reported this issue again until November 2023.

Damp and mould

12. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord as part of its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 must ensure the property is free from such hazards.
13. On 3 November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould had returned across the rear wall of her property. The landlord inspected the property on 15 November 2023 and noted high damp meter readings along the rear wall to the lounge, kitchen and the internal kitchen wall. It also recorded high readings to the external brickwork adjacent to the lounge and that the kitchen window pointing was defective. The landlord said it would arrange for its contractor to complete a survey and recommend the appropriate repairs. The landlord’s attendance was reasonable because it was consistent with its Damp and Mould Standard Operating Procedure which says it will visually inspect the property within 10 working days of the initial report.
14. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Framework 2023-2024 says it will risk assess all reports of damp and mould and prioritise them based on the resident’s needs and its hazard assessment criteria. While the landlord inspected the property within a reasonable timeframe, we have not seen any evidence that it completed a risk assessment at this time. Had it done this, it would have given the landlord an opportunity to ask the resident about her needs and the needs of her household members and whether there was anything it needed to do to ease the impact on them. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
15. The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 29 November 2023 and made recommendations to resolve the damp and mould.
16. The resident contacted the landlord around the beginning of March 2024 to request an update. She said she had spoken to the contractor who told her it had sent its report to the landlord in November 2023 but had not heard anything. The landlord informed the resident that the matter was with its surveyor.  The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states it aims to complete any necessary works within 6 weeks of the initial report. It also says it will provide updates to the resident as required, but at least every 3 days. There is no evidence that the landlord acted following the contractor’s attendance in November 2023, which was a failure. It also failed to keep the resident updated, which was another failure.
17. Between 2 April 2024 and 28 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions to report she was unhappy with the repairs completed by the contractor and the lack of communication and updates. We can see the landlord completed follow up inspections and referred the repairs back to the contractor where required. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord proactively kept the resident updated following its inspections. This left the resident not knowing what work the contractor would complete and when. For example we can see the landlord inspected the property on 19 June 2024 and found outstanding repairs which it said the contractor needed to rectify. On 2 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said the contractor had not completed any further works since the landlord’s inspection on 19 June 2024.
18. We can see the landlord inspected the repairs again on 7 August 2024 when it found the laminate flooring was incomplete and the threshold bar was missing from between the kitchen and the lounge. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 August 2024 when she asked the landlord to confirm when the contractor would return to complete the repairs. Within this call the resident referred to water coming into the property, which she believed was coming from the roof.
19. While we understand that delays can occur when trying to locate and repair leaks, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of water ingress, damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord logged this repair at this time. It was only after the resident raised her concerns in December 2024 about the landlord fitting the laminate flooring before it had resolved the water ingress, that it arranged to inspect the roof. This was a failure.
20. Although the repair records do not show exactly when the landlord completed the repairs, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states the contractor invoiced for some of the damp and mould repairs in July 2024 but some remained outstanding. The evidence indicates the landlord repaired the roof leak around the middle of March 2025.
21. In relation to the laminate flooring, it was reasonable that the landlord waited until it had rectified the leak before it replaced this. However, the unreasonably long time that the landlord took to rectify the leak meant the resident had defective flooring longer than she should. The records indicate the landlord completed laying the laminate flooring around 15 April 2025. This was a period of a year and a half from when it was first brought to its attention.
22. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould outlines that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to it, ensuring that their responses to this issue are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The evidence provided by the landlord does not show this was the case. In addition to it taking 17 months to complete the damp and mould works and identify and complete the repairs to the roof, there was also a lack of updates provided by the landlord to the resident. The delay was despite the landlord having noted there had been high damp meter readings in the property when it attended in November 2023.
23. The landlord’s failure meant the resident had to deal with the damp and mould issues for a prolonged period and over the winter months. Had the landlord followed its procedure in November 2023 this would have ensured it progressed the repairs in a timely manner and the resident may have not felt it necessary to raise her complaint.
24. In addition to repairs the resident said the contractor had damaged her window blinds and a mirror. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that the main issue with the blinds was that they no longer fitted the windows because of a reduction in space due to the work it had completed. It agreed to replace the blinds after it had completed the works. We would consider this to be a reasonable response and in line with its Compensation Policy which says it will consider practical action, such as doing additional repairs or decoration works outside its contractual requirements, as part of a suitable solution to the service failure.
25. In relation to the mirror, the landlord said it required evidence of the damage to assess the value. It asked the resident to send it a photograph and a receipt to confirm this. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it may consider paying compensation where the landlord or a contractor has caused damage to personal belongings. However, the policy also says the landlord may request supporting information from the resident so that it can calculate the compensation. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to request this evidence before it agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the mirror.

Summary and conclusions

26. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Failed to complete a risk assessment to assess the hazard level of the damp and mould.
    2. Failed to take any action following the contractor’s inspection in November 2023.
    3. Failed to log and respond to the report of a roof leak in August 2024.
    4. Delayed unreasonably in completing the damp and mould works to the resident’s property.
    5. Failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the repairs which resulted in her having to chase the landlord for updates.
27. We would consider these failures to amount to severe maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her. This is because there were aggravating circumstances such as the ill health for the resident and her household, the delays, and the fact that a household member had to stay elsewhere for prolonged periods of time. The disruption and detriment to the household was high.
28. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
29. The landlord acted fairly by it apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delays in it completing the damp and mould repairs.
30. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repairs to the rear wall in the kitchen, replacing the laminate flooring, replacing the blinds, and by offering the resident compensation.
31. However, the landlord failed to properly recognise the impact the delays had on the resident and her family. It failed to consider the difficulty the resident faced in having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. It is concerning that the landlord has no record of the resident’s household vulnerabilities. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord update its records to reflect this.
32. The landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Where a landlord does not undertake learning, it can be bound to make the same mistakes.
33. The Ombudsman’s special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents including in monitoring of contractors, risk management in relation to identifying hazards, repair timescales, and its knowledge and information management in relation to repairs. We made recommendations that the landlord revise its existing policies to ensure it proactively worked to remove hazards and reduce risks to residents, worked with contractors to ensure performance monitoring was in place, and that it improved its record keeping practices. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, we have not made any orders or recommendations for the landlord’s handling of repairs for leaks, damp, and mould in addition to those made in the special investigation report.
34. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is available online, a fair level of compensation would be £2,000, which is an increase of £800. This offer appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because, although the landlord acknowledged some of the failures and made attempts to put things right, the offer of compensation made was not proportionate to the failings identified in our report.

Complaint handling

35. In its complaint handling the landlord acknowledged its failures which included;
    1. Poor overall complaint handling.
    2. Failure to provide a response by the 2nd complaint extension.
36. It offered £75 compensation to recognise these failures.
37. Having considered this case we can see the resident informed the landlord that she was not happy with its stage 1 response on 25 April 2024. She explained that the repairs were outstanding, the landlord had not addressed the issue of the flooring and blinds, and the compensation offered was too low. Although this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint and so did not escalate the process from stage 1 to stage 2. This was not in line with paragraph 1.3 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Instead it asked the resident for her views on what amount of compensation she believed would be reasonable. This meant that the resident’s further reports of poor service did not receive a formal response until she raised another complaint in November 2024.
38. By failing to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction, the landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner and left her waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
39. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
40. While the landlord acknowledged some of its complaint handling failures and apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to recognise it had missed the complaint escalation in April 2024. This delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process so that she could bring the matter to us for an independent investigation. We consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
41. Having considered our remedies guidance, the £75 compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures identified. We have therefore increased the compensation for complaint handling to £250.
42. The Ombudsman’s special investigation report in May 2024 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents including in complaint handling. We recommended the landlord make changes reviewing its complaint handling processes and training to make sure it complied with the Code. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, we have not made any orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this report. The apology must come from a manager.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,250 which is comprised of:
       1. £2,000in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
       2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
    3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

46. We recommend the landlord contact the resident to obtain details of the household’s vulnerabilities and update its records accordingly, subject to the resident’s agreement.