Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202427647)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427647

Southern Housing

1 October 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:

a.     Decision not to carry out soundproofing at the resident’s property.

b.     Handling of repairs to guttering maintenance and associated damp and mould.

c.      Response to the resident’s reports of external drainage issues.

d.     Response to the resident’s reports about a previous neighbour’s rubbish.

e.     Handling of repairs at an upstairs property.

2.     The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3.     The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He lives in a flat (the property) which is on the ground floor of a house converted into 2 flats. The landlord recorded in August and November 2023 that he had mental health vulnerabilities and physical conditions affecting his ability to move heavy items or climb stairs.

4.     The landlord did a noise transfer survey of the resident’s property on 30 January 2024. We ordered the landlord to do this after investigating his previous complaint. On 21 February 2024 it inspected the drainage outside the property. The report from this recommended installing a second soakaway. The landlord attended the property on 22 March 2024 to clear some items left outside by the ex-residents of the upstairs flat, and repair a leaking mains stop tap.

5.     The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 12 June 2024. He said:

a.     The property needed soundproofing to be liveable.

b.     The previous neighbours had left household rubbish and possessions outside the property. He said he reported this in November 2023, but it had taken 8 months for the landlord to clear this.

c.      It had cleared gutters but not downpipes at the property, leading to water running down the outside of the property and damp problems inside.

d.     The landlord had contributed to the property feeling like “a building site” for 2 weeks. He said roadworks took place at night until 4am and then the landlord ran a generator to work on the upstairs property from 6.30am.

6.     The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 July 2024. It said its noise survey had not found any repairs needed to reduce noise transfer. The landlord said it had cleared the gutters on 17 November 2023 and had returned to clear the downpipes. It added that it had inspected the external drainage and found the existing soakaway could not cope with the volume of water. The landlord said it had no record of the resident reporting damp in the property and would arrange a damp and mould survey. It confirmed the previous neighbour’s rubbish had been removed and said it could not give any further details because of data protection. The landlord said it was not responsible for the noise from roadworks and apologised for any noise caused by its work to the upstairs flat. It did not uphold the complaint.

7.     The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s procedure on 17 July 2024. He disputed that any work was done to the downpipes and said the building was overflowing with water externally. The resident said that the landlord had removed some of the previous neighbour’s items from the front garden but had left household rubbish behind. He said he had not received a report from the noise survey and maintained that sound transferred clearly from above. The resident said the landlord had not kept noise to minimum when repairing the upstairs property and had run a generator on the front door for 2 days and was “banging around for a week”. He wanted the landlord to resolve the repairs and stop the damp from entering his property.

8.     The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 7 November 2024. It relayed the findings of its noise survey and said it would not do any repairs to reduce noise. The landlord acknowledged it should have provided more explanation about the removal of rubbish and said it would offer compensation for this. It said it had delayed in raising work to the guttering and downpipes and offered £15 compensation for this. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for not considering whether a second soakaway was needed for external drainage.

9.     The landlord went on to say said that it had spoken with the resident on 5 July 2024 and he had agreed that the damp he reported was related to external repairs. It said the matter had been referred back to its repairs team and offered £15 compensation for the delay. The landlord acknowledged its final complaint response was late and offered £50 compensation for this. It also acknowledged that its handling of repairs at the neighbouring property would have caused the resident inconvenience, and it offered him £50 compensation.

10. The resident attempted to escalate his complaint further with the landlord on 13 November 2024. He reported that the damp and mould had affected his arthritis and the noise had prevented him from sleeping. The resident highlighted new repair issues and said the damp and mould had damaged his decorations and possessions.

11. The resident told us on 29 November 2024 that his desired resolution was to be provided with new permanent accommodation, or temporary accommodation while repairs were completed.

12. The landlord told the resident on 16 December 2024 that it would not escalate the complaint as it had exhausted its complaints procedure.

13. The resident told us on 17 September 2025 that the landlord had since carried out a damp inspection in July 2025 and had found multiple repairs were needed to stop the damp in the property. He said it had washed mould and installed an extractor fan but had not arranged to complete the other repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident said that his mental and physical health was affected by the damp and the noise. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health, and we can consider this general risk. However, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any negative effect on his health. This is a matter better suited to a personal injury claim through the courts or through liability insurance. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making such a claim if he wishes to pursue this. We will, however, consider the landlord’s response to any reports of his health concerns and if any of its failings led to distress and inconvenience for him.

15. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident told the landlord after its final response about damage to his decorations and possessions from the damp in his property. He also said that there were signs of subsidence, his doors could not be closed because they had swollen from the damp, and his windows were too rusted to open. The landlord has not yet had the opportunity to consider these issues through its complaints process, and in line with the Scheme, we have not made a determination on these issues. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord about these issues if he wants to and he may be able to refer the new complaint to us if he remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s decision not to carry out soundproofing at the resident’s property

16. The landlord’s noise survey on 30 January 2024 found that there were no defects in the property that led to noise transfer between the resident’s property and the flat above. It had an obligation, in line with its tenancy agreement with the resident, to carry out repairs when there is a defect in the property. However, the landlord is not obliged to carry out improvements to a property. Since the survey found no defects, the landlord was not obliged to carry out any repairs to soundproof the property as soundproofing would represent an improvement to the property.

17. The report from the survey said that the conversion of the house into 2 flats met the building regulations that were in force at the time of the conversion. There is no requirement for a landlord to bring a property up to the standards of current building regulations, it only has to meet the regulations in place at the time of construction or conversion. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the survey in confirming to the resident that it would not do any work to reduce noise transfer. There was no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to carry out soundproofing to the resident’s property.

18. Although the landlord did not have a duty to soundproof the resident’s property, it could have done more to help the resident. The landlord’s internal records on 17 June 2024 said it would visit the new neighbours above him to assess what could be done to reduce noise transference, such as fitting carpets and washing machine mats. There is no evidence that it visited, and the resident informed us that the upstairs neighbour still does not have carpeting. We will therefore recommend that, if it has not already done so, the landlord should visit the neighbours to assess what noise prevention measures it can assist with. It should then provide an update to the resident confirming any steps it will take.

The landlord’s handling of guttering maintenance and associated damp and mould

19. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will “aim to complete most routine (non-emergency) repairs within 20 working days”. It defines emergency repairs as repairs which cause an immediate risk to people or the property. The policy goes on to say, if the landlord is unable to keep to its repairs timeframes, it should explain why to the resident.

20. The landlord has provided evidence to show that contractors attended on 17 November 2023 to carry out “gutter works”. The resident said, in his stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2024, that the guttering clearance was incomplete as the downpipes had not been cleared. The landlord said, in its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024, it had returned to clear the downpipes. However, it has provided no evidence of this work and its internal records on 16 January 2025 showed that it had no record of doing any work to the gutters since 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord did any work to the guttering or downpipes in response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It therefore misdirected him in its stage 1 response by saying it had returned to do the work.

21. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord proposed to inspect the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Its final stage complaint response said that, on 5 July 2023, he “agreed that rather than a damp and mould issue, it is felt problems experienced are linked with blocked down pipes”. The landlord said this led to the repair being referred back to its repairs team from its damp and mould team. It was inappropriate that it did this as the resident had reported that mould was present in the property which the landlord should have addressed. Damp and mould are a hazard, as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme (HHSRS), which was introduced in the Housing Act 2004. This says that landlords have a duty to inspect and minimise any hazards to residents which are present in their properties.

22. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to still inspect the damp and mould in the resident’s property. While he attributed the damp and mould inside his property with the leaking roofs and guttering, the landlord could have provided interim measures such as a mould wash or dehumidifiers to minimise the risk to the resident. It should have checked to confirm that the cause of the damp and mould was fixed, and it was a result of the roof and gutters rather than another cause. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do this.

23. Further, the landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s repair report on 5 July 2023. It was on notice from that date that leaks, and mould were affecting the resident’s property, but it failed to attempt a repair until 21 January 2025. This was approximately 6 months later and was an unreasonable delay. As there was no evidence that the leaks, damp and mould were an emergency repair, it should have completed the repairs within 20 working days as a routine repair or explained to him why there was a delay. It did not do this which was a failure to act in line with its repairs policy.

24. The resident asked in his complaint escalation for help to move out and he told us on 29 November 2024 that he wanted to be moved to new permanent accommodation to resolve his complaint. Whilst we acknowledge the difficulties the resident experienced at his current property, we will not order the landlord to move him. This is because we do not know the available properties the landlord has, nor if there are other people who have a higher priority for housing. In general, the highest priority is given to those facing homelessness. However, we have looked at the landlord’s response to the resident’s request and whether it followed its relevant procedures and confirmed the reasons for its decision.

25. The landlord did not address the resident’s request to move in its final complaint response. This was a failing which may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not listening to him or taking his concerns seriously. Due to this lack of response, we do not know what the landlord’s position is regarding this. The landlord should assess the resident’s request to move and write to him confirming its decision. It also make him aware of other options for moving which may be available, such as a mutual exchange.

26. Overall, the landlord’s handling of guttering maintenance and associated damp and mould amounts to maladministration.

27. The £15 compensation the landlord offered the resident in its final stage complaint response did not proportionately reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. Its offer of £15 did not take into account its failure to address the damp and mould and its subsequent excessive delay in doing repairs or its failure to respond to his transfer request. We will order the landlord to pay him compensation of £300 to replace its offer of £15. This award is in line with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. This says that awards of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate when there has been a failure by the landlord which had a significant negative effect on the resident, but the impact may not be permanent.

28. Our award of compensation takes into account that the landlord has since carried out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property and identified repairs. This was a reasonable action, however, this was after a significant delay of approximately a year after he first reported damp in this property. We will order that it provides a schedule of repairs arising from its inspection to the resident to confirm its next steps. We will recommend that it completes these repairs in line with the timeframes in its repairs policy. We will also order the landlord to either provide details of its liability insurer so the resident can make a claim for damage to his possessions and décor or assess a claim itself internally. If the landlord assesses the claim itself, it must write to him to confirm the reasons for its decision.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of external drainage issues

29. The landlord inspected the soakaway, which provided external drainage to the resident’s property, on 21 February 2024. It is unclear if this was in response to a repair report from the resident. Despite our request for evidence, the landlord has not provided any contact logs to put this event into context. Because of this record keeping failure, it is not possible to determine this inspection was a timely and appropriate response.

30. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024 said its inspection on 21 February 2024 had found that the existing soakaway could not handle the volume of water. Its final complaint response on 7 November 2024 said it would arrange for this to be re-considered. This was an unreasonable response from the landlord as the notes from the inspection on 21 February 2024 recommended installing a new soakaway at the side of the property. The landlord did not act on this despite being advised by its contractor that the drainage was insufficient. We would expect the landlord to act on the recommendations of its suitably qualified staff and contractors or explain why this was not suitable and suggest an alternative method of fixing the problem.

31. The landlord’s internal records from 18 November 2024 said that there was no need for a second soakaway. It said the external flooding was due to a mains water leak which had since been repaired. The landlord failed to inform the resident about this decision. Further, its decision was inconsistent with the evidence. The landlord’s records showed that it did repair work on 22 March 2024 which involved removing rubbish to gain access to the leaking mains water stopcock. However, the resident said in his complaint escalation on 17 July 2024 that there was still external flooding. There was no evidence that the landlord then inspected the external drainage before deciding that no further work was needed. This was an unreasonable response. The landlord should have recognised that the resident’s report was made after its repairs and inspected the drainage to see if any further work was needed. This was a failure by the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s report.

32. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation in its final complaint response for the delay in addressing the external drainage. Considering the landlord’s subsequent failure to appropriately inspect the drainage and its poor communication with the resident, this offer was insufficient. To recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced from the landlord’s failures, we will order it to pay him £200 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance, as mentioned above. We will also order the landlord to inspect the external drainage and carry out any work arising from this in line with its published repair timescales.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a previous neighbour’s rubbish

33.             The resident told the landlord on 11 September 2023 that the previous neighbour had left rubbish and possessions outside when they left the property. His stage 1 complaint said he reported the matter again in November 2023. The landlord has provided no records of his reports or its response to him. This is a recordkeeping failure, and the lack of records means we cannot determine that the landlord acted promptly and appropriately in response to his reports. Therefore, we can only conclude it did not respond appropriately.

34.             The landlord’s internal records on 11 March 2024 showed that the water company had contacted it about a leak from the mains stop tap in the garden which was causing flooding. The water company was unable to access the stop tap because of the accumulated rubbish from the previous neighbour. The landlord’s records showed that it cleared some of the bulkier items on 22 March 2024 to enable the stop tap to be repaired. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not confirm this to the resident at the time. It was also unreasonable that it did not explain why it had removed some, but not all of the items, in its complaint responses.

35. The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response, that it should have provided an apology and more information about the delay in removing all of the previous neighbour’s items and rubbish. It said it would offer the resident compensation for this. However, it did not offer him any compensation for this issue in its final complaint response. Given that the resident had reported that the rubbish had attracted vermin, it was also unreasonable the landlord did comment on this to confirm it had resolved the issue. As the resident has not reported that the rodent infestation is ongoing, it appears this is resolved. However, the landlord should have offered compensation as it said it would.

36. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the rubbish amounts to maladministration. While it was positive that it acknowledged its failings, it was unreasonable that it did not address the resident’s concerns about rodents or follow through with its offer of compensation. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. Our award takes into account that the accumulation of rubbish caused the resident inconvenience over a significant period of time and the resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord to resolve it. We have also taken into account that the presence of rodents is a potential health hazard which needed to be addressed with more urgency.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at an upstairs property

37. The landlord was entitled to carry out work to the recently vacated upstairs property to prepare it for new tenants. Considering the resident’s reports of noise transfer, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to communicate with the resident about the work in advance. The landlord could have told him that it would be using a generator, which may cause noise. It could also have told him about how long the work, and the associated noise, may last for.

38. The resident was unhappy that the landlord’s repairs coincided with roadworks which also caused noise. Its complaint responses said that the roadworks were outside its control. This was a reasonable response. It would not be reasonable to expect a landlord to coordinate its repair work with the local authority’s work on the roads.

39. The resident said that the landlord’s workers would start as early as 6.30am. This is an unsociable hour to do repair work which generates noise. The landlord did not dispute this, and it acknowledged, in its final complaint response, that he would have been inconvenienced by the noise from the repair work. It was positive that it offered him compensation of £50 to recognise this.

40. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above which suggests awards in this range where the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions but the issue may not have been going on for a long time and the errors did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. The period of the repair work was relatively brief, lasting 1 to 2 weeks by the resident’s account, Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was proportionate and represents reasonable redress for the inconvenience he experienced due to the landlord’s building works.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

41. The landlord has a complaints procedure that complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. All landlords who are members of the Scheme must comply with the Code which sets out our expectations of complaint handling practice.

42. The Code says that landlords should have a 2 stage complaints process. A landlord must acknowledge a complaint or complaint escalation within 5 working days. It should then respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1 of the procedure. At the final stage, the landlord should respond within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. If the landlord is unable to keep to these timeframes, it must contact the resident to explain why and agree an extension if it will take more than another 10 working days to respond.

43. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 June 2024, and it responded on 5 July 2024. The landlord’s response was late and not compliant with the Code. This delay would have caused the resident inconvenience as he was waiting longer than he should have been for a response to his concerns. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 8 August 2024. This was a delay of 12 working days. The landlord then issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 7 November 2024. This was 65 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation. This was an excessive delay which would have caused inconvenience to the resident.

44. The landlord recognised, in its final stage complaint response, that it had delayed in responding to the complaint. It was positive that it offered compensation to recognise this. Its offer of £50 compensation was broadly in line with our remedies guidance and represented a reasonable offer of redress. However, the landlord did not explain why its final complaint response was so late. It also did not demonstrate any learning from its failure. Therefore, we will recommend to the landlord that it carries out refresher training for complaints handling staff. We will also recommend that it reviews its complaints handling processes to ensure complaints are handled in line with its procedures and the Code.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:

a.     handling of guttering repairs maintenance and associated damp and mould.

b.     response to the resident’s reports of external drainage issues.

c.      response to the resident’s reports about a previous neighbour’s rubbish.

46. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to carry out soundproofing in the resident’s property.

47. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:

a.     Its handling of repairs at an upstairs property.

b.     Its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has complied with the following orders:

a.     Write to the resident to set out its action plan for resolving the damp in his property. This should set out what repairs will be done and the estimated dates when it will attend. This should also include an agreed schedule of contact with the resident to update him on progress until the repairs are complete. The landlord must provide a copy of this action plan to the Ombudsman.

b.     Complete an inspection of the external drainage outside the resident’s property. It should consider whether this has contributed to the damp issues inside the property and whether drainage from neighbouring properties is a contributing factor. The landlord must provide a copy of the report from this inspection to the resident and the Ombudsman.

c.      Either provide details of its liability insurer so the resident can make a claim for damage to his possessions and décor or assess a claim itself internally. If the landlord assesses the claim itself, it must write to him to confirm the reasons for its decision.

d.     Assess the resident’s transfer request and write to him explaining the reasons for its decision. The landlord should include in the letter any other options for moving which may be available to the resident, such as a mutual exchange.

e.     Pay the resident compensation of £700. This is made up of:

i.        £300 for the inconvenience and distress he experienced from the landlord’s failings in addressing the guttering and downpipes and associated damp and mould. It may deduct the £15 it offered him in its final stage complaint response if it can evidence it has already paid this.

ii.      £200 for the inconvenience and distress he experienced from the landlord’s response to his reports of external drainage issues. It may deduct the £25 it offered him in its final stage complaint response if it can evidence it has already paid this.

iii.    £200 compensation for the inconvenience he experienced from the landlord’s response to his reports about a previous neighbour’s rubbish.

Recommendations

49. The landlord should:

a.     Complete any repairs arising from its damp and mould action plan within the published timeframes in its responsive repairs policy.

b.     Complete any repairs arising from its inspection of the external drainage within the published timeframes in its responsive repairs policy.

c.      Inspect the property for the signs of subsidence the resident reported on 13 November 2024, if it has not done so already. It should share the findings of this inspection with the resident.

d.     Pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered him for the inconvenience he experienced from its repairs at a neighbouring property, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress for this issue is dependent on the landlord paying this.

e.     Pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered him for the inconvenience he experienced from its handling of the complaint, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying this.