Southern Housing (202426245)

Decision
Case ID	202426245
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

The resident lived in the property (a flat) as a tenant and moved out of the flat in early August 2024. He experienced damp and mould at the flat, which has led to this complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its response to his reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould

The landlord apologised and acknowledged its delays in carrying out a damp and mould inspection. It made an offer of £280 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has apologised and acknowledged its delays in issuing a stage 1 complaint response. It also made an offer of £15 to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused over about a delay of about 7 working days.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. On this occasion however our determination is made on the basis that the landlord re-makes the offer of financial payment to the resident in consideration of its recognised failings as assessed below, and the landlord should observe this recommendation accordingly.

Our recommendations
The landlord should repeat the offer it made at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure to pay the resident a total of £295 (£280 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in responding to the damp and mould, and £15 for the inconvenience caused by delays in issuing the stage 1 complaint response). Our findings of reasonable redress are dependent on this compensation being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 June 2024	The resident made a formal complaint to say: The flat had significant damp and mould issues which affected his physical and mental health. He had to discard expensive designer clothes, trainers and other belongings which were damaged by the mould. He would like the landlord to move him to another property.
3 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and said it would reply by 17 July 2024.
4 July 2024	The resident notified the landlord that he was terminating the tenancy in early August 2024.
17 July 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to ask for an extension until 22 July 2024 to provide a response. This was due to staff absences and a high work volume.
22 July 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it was experiencing IT issues and would issue the stage 1 response by 1 August 2024.
1 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It stated that: It received the resident’s first report of damp and mould on 4 April 2024. After this, it arranged a damp and mould inspection on 30 April 2024 which did not go ahead due to no access. When it received another report from the resident on 20 May 2024, it referred the matter to its newly formed damp and mould team, who arranged an inspection for 19 June 2024. It found significant damp and mould on that occasion and arranged a thorough mould cleaning on 28 June 2024. It acknowledged a delay in progressing the damp and mould works. It offered £90 compensation (£75 for the distress and inconvenience caused, £15 for a failure to follow progress, and £15 for the delay in issuing a formal stage 1 response).
6 August 2024	The resident left the property but continued to pursue the complaint. He wrote to the landlord to say he had to discard the following items, which he stated were damaged by the mould: Designer clothes which he valuated at £900. Furniture which he valuated at over £1000. Some sentimental items. He also said he had severe skin problems, suffered poor mental health, and lost income from taking days off work, which he attributed to the damp and mould. He asked for a full refund of 4 months rent.
19 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request.
17 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It stated that: It again acknowledged delays, including arranging an initial damp and mould inspection and referring the case to its damp and mould team. The resident declined further works as he was moving out. It offered £295 in compensation for failings (£250 for distress and inconvenience caused, £15 for the delay in arranging the initial damp and mould inspection, £15 for the delay in referral to the damp and mould team, and £15 for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response). It could not offer compensation for the alleged damage caused to his personal belongings or for alleged loss of earnings. It said he should make a claim via his own contents insurance policy or, if he believed the landlord to be liable for this loss, he could make a claim to its public liability insurer. It attached a claim form for his reference.
4 October 2024	The resident expressed that he remained dissatisfied with the compensation offer and rejected it. He asked the landlord to pay him £1,800 equal to the full amount of rent for 4 months.
7 October 2024	The resident referred the matter to our service.
4 February 2026	The resident explained to us that while he had moved out of the flat, he continued to seek a higher compensation offer. He also confirmed he had not filed any claim either with his own contents insurer or the landlord’s public liability insurer.

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 landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we are not able to consider

The resident shared with us that he experienced skin issues and poor mental health during the period covered by this complaint. He also said he took unpaid leave and lost earnings. He said he believed the damp and mould was the root cause of his poor physical and mental health and loss of earnings, for which he asked the landlord to be held accountable.
We have explained to the resident that we are not able to not able to determine whether a landlord’s actions or failures to act have impacted on a person’s health, wellbeing or ability to work. The courts are better suited to make findings on this type of claim with support from medical experts. We can consider however if the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The landlord has already acknowledged there was an initial delay in arranging the damp and mould inspection, and then another delay in referring the matter to the damp and mould team to carry out the inspection.
The resident has told us he called the landlord to report the mould as early as December 2023. However, we have not seen evidence of this. The earliest record we have seen of the landlord being made aware of the damp and mould was from 4 April 2024.
The landlord arranged an initial damp and mould visit after it received the resident’s reports. This was 7 working days outside the 10-working day timeframe stipulated in its damp and mould policy. The landlord’s surveyor could not gain access and left a calling card. When the resident contacted the landlord again later, it then arranged another inspection which was 12 days later than the 10-working day timeframe for carrying out a survey.
Once mould was identified, there was no further delay and the landlord arranged a thorough mould wash within 2 weeks which was well within its timeframe for responsive repairs. It also proposed appropriate works such as installing passive vents, but this work could not continue due to the resident moving out.
Overall, the total delay was about 1 month or less. The landlord apologised, acknowledged these failings in full, and offered a total of £280 in recognition of the delays and the distress and inconvenience its failings have caused to the resident. In our view it is also an offer proportionate to the length of the delay and the landlord’s subsequent actions to mitigate the problem.
The resident has said he suffered poor physical and mental health, lost many items of value and was unable to work. He claimed the financial loss was no less than £1,900. The landlord acted reasonably in asking him to submit a claim either with his own contents insurer or its public liability insurer. It has also provided him with the insurance claim form which was appropriate.
We understand the resident has not accepted any compensation from the landlord.
Overall, we find the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in recognition of the impact caused to the resident through its failings in responding to the reports of damp and mould. This finding is dependent on the landlord re-offering the compensation it awarded at stage 2 of its complaint process.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The complaint responses set out a clear and full explanation of what happened and acknowledgment of failings.
There were repeated delays in issuing the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acted in line with our Complaints Handling Code in seeking an extension for the first time, however its second delay did not comply with our Code. It said to the resident it would provide a response by 22 July 2024 but was unable to meet this deadline. It issued the response on 1 August 2024 instead. Overall there was a delay of 7 working days.
The landlord apologised for this and offered £15 in recognition of the trouble and inconvenience caused by the delay. This was in our view proportionate to the duration of the delay and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy regarding discretionary payments.
The resident has not accepted this offer previously. On the basis that the landlord re-makes its stage 2 offer of compensation to him, we find it made a reasonable offer of redress in recognition of the impact caused to him through its delays in complaint handling.

Learning

Communication

The landlord’s communication in its complaint responses was clear, concise and accurate.