Southern Housing (202432773)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432773

Southern Housing

27 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Her reports of damp and mould.
    2. Her reports of security concerns including issues with the communal entrance door, the front door to her flat and a lack of CCTV.
    3. Her requests for a housing move.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived in the property, a 3-bedroom flat with no garden, with her young children since March 2023. She is a domestic violence survivor and the children have also experienced domestic violence. She has reported she and one of her children had asthma. She also reported she had a number of mental health conditions including depression and anxiety.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident has been reporting damp and mould issues since as early as June 2023. The landlord carried out a survey in November 2023. There was mould in all 3 bedrooms, mould to the window revels and high levels of condensation on the glass of some windows.
  2. The surveyor provided advice to the resident about reducing condensation in the property. They also recommended a mould wash and checking the extractor fans, as well as fitting more facilities to help with ventilation, including pacifier vents in all bedrooms and a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit.
  3. The resident raised a complaint about the damp and mould in December 2023 saying the landlord informally offered her £125 which she did not felt was adequate. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response in the same month. It apologised for the delay in following up with the surveyor’s recommendations from November 2023. It offered £250 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, which she accepted. It said it would also redecorate the walls after completing work on the ventilation.
  4. The landlord carried out a mould wash in all of the bedrooms on 8 December 2023. It redecorated the flat in January 2024. There is no record to show it installed new fans or vents at the time.
  5. The resident reported the mould had recurred in November 2024. She wrote to the landlord to report this on 4 November 2024 raising it directly as a formal complaint instead of as a repair issue. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 26 November 2024 to say its damp and mould team would contact within 5 days for an inspection, and the resident must claim compensation for any damaged belongings through her own contents insurance for which she was responsible.
  6. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 29 November 2024 and found there was condensation on the windows and walls of the bedrooms, and in the kitchen, although no mould was visible at the time. They recommended a further visit by a specialist. They also repeated the earlier recommendation of fitting pacifier vents in the bedrooms and potentially upgrading the extractor fans.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and asked to escalate her complaint. She stated she had no contents insurance due to religious reasons. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2025 summarised as follows:
    1. It summarised the findings from the survey on 29 November 2024 and apologised that it had not followed up with a specialist survey. Its damp and mould team would be in touch by 23 January 2025.
    2. It acknowledged the resident had said her personal belongings had been spoiled by damp and mould and she did not have her own contents insurance. It attached its claim form for the resident to make a claim on its own liability insurance.
    3. It offered £80 in recognition of its failings to appropriately handle the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  8. The resident declined this offer of compensation. She instructed a solicitor on her behalf to start a disrepair claim against the landlord in January 2025. She has issued a pre-action letter of claim but not issued proceedings at court as of August 2025.
  9. The landlord has carried out a further mould wash in February 2025 and damp and mould survey in March 2025. The parties are negotiating next steps in the ongoing disrepair claim.
  10. The resident has told us she felt the landlord did not act soon enough and did not do enough to address the damp and mould. She says her physical and mental health has deteriorated and she had lost belongings due to damage from damp and mould.

Security concerns including issues with the communal entrance door, the front door to the resident’s flat and a lack of CCTV.

  1. From 18 January 2024 to June 2024 there were repeated reports from the resident in this case and other residents in the block that the communal front door was not closing properly. The landlord’s engineer advised in January 2024 that the door set needed a replacement due to its age and condition.
  2. The landlord informed the resident on 5 February 2024 that a quotation for replacement was in process. Records show it carried out temporary fixes on several occasions and a number of callouts were necessary. The engineer again recommended upgrading the door set on 20 May 2024.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint in June 2024 to raise these concerns. She asked the landlord to install CCTV. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2024 summarised as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delays in processing the quotation and fixing the communal door. It aimed to replace the communal door by 31 October 2024 – this process could take 16 weeks.
    2. There was no evidence to show that the communal door was damaged through anti-social behaviour. The engineers who had inspected it had found it was more likely wear and tear that had caused the damage. Under these circumstances it would not consider putting up CCTV.
    3. It offered £105 for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to delays in processing the quotation and providing the complaint response.
  4. The resident asked for an escalation on 23 August 2024 stating the offer was not sufficient to reflect the anxiety she had gone through, nor had the landlord taken adequate safety measures.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 30 August 2024 summarised as follows:
    1. It apologised for ongoing issues with the communal door.
    2. It acknowledged that 16 weeks for replacement was a long time to wait but said it had limited control over the delivery process.
    3. It acknowledged it should have informed the resident on individual safety measures while she was waiting for the door replacement.
    4. It increased its offer to £510 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to these issues and also for its miscommunication with her.
  6. The resident made a new complaint on 4 November 2024 to say the communal door remained broken. She stated she disactivated the trade button herself to prevent unwanted contact but it was ‘reactivated without her consent’. She asked the landlord to repair the communal door and to disable or remove the trade button. She also said the landlord had not added locks to the front door to her flat as she requested.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 26 November 2024 to say its inspector would attend on 29 November 2024 to see what additional measures could be added to her front door, and it had raised another repair job about the communal entrance door.
  8. The inspection on 29 November 2024 found that the communal entrance door was secure and could not be pushed open. It also found the front door of the flat had a functional ‘Yale night-latch’ and ‘Euro thumb turn lock’ which were working well.
  9. On 18 December 2024 a contractor replaced the communal door including the frame. The landlord carried out a post-inspection on 10 January 2025 and confirmed the work was satisfactory.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2025 to say this issue was subject to a previous complaint process which the resident had already exhausted. It would add only that it had completed all the necessary work on 18 December 2024 and it had not been able to install an additional lock to the front door of the flat. It said if the resident wished to apply for permission to modify her front door she could do so, and its emergency line was open 24/7 for security reports.

Housing move

  1. The resident originally resided in a different borough. She moved into her current flat with her children in March 2023 after experiencing domestic violence from her ex-husband. The borough she is currently living in is the same one where her ex-husband lives.
  2. Around April to June 2024 the resident reported unwanted contact from her ex-husband at the property and subsequently requested a management move. She also stated that her son had special needs and the current flat was not suitable for him. The landlord referred her case to an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) and conducted a Domestic Abuse assessment on 20 June 2024.
  3. According to the resident, the landlord initially told her a move was unlikely to be successful due to her ‘low eligibility’ on the criteria.
  4. The landlord’s notes indicated that its officer contacted MARAC to clarify its position. MARAC provided a letter in support of a move for the resident on 16 July 2024. The landlord then approved her application for management move on 19 July 2024. Records showed it also reached out to other social landlords in the area in early August 2024 to explore a reciprocal exchange.
  5. The resident raised a new formal complaint on 4 November 2024 expressing dissatisfaction that she had been told she ‘did not fit the eligibility criteria’ and a move was ‘unlikely’. She stated there were two vacant units within her building and questioned why the landlord could not give her either.
  6. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 26 November 2024 that it did not offer internal moves and its housing officer would contact within 5 working days to review her housing options.
  7. After the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2025 confirming that it had the MARAC letter of support and the resident was on its list for a management move. It explained further it was waiting for suitable homes to become available but it could not offer timescales. It said was also liaising with external agencies to source a property but it could not comment further on the availability of other units in the block, which could be void due to legal issues or needing major works.
  8. The resident had also enquired about emergency accommodation. The landlord explained in a letter in March 2025 that it did not offer emergency accommodation, and if she found herself to be in immediate danger she would need to contact the local authority.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord placed her into a borough where her ex-husband lived and believed the landlord was not prioritising her needs, despite her having reported that she was at risk and the house did not meet her son’s special needs. She also stated she believed the landlord had not understood her specific housing needs and her mental health had been severely affected by the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In relation to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord has handled her reports of damp and mould, we acknowledge that she had made a complaint in November 2023 which was resolved at stage 1 and was not escalated at the time. Although a year passed until she made a second complaint, this investigation will take this background information into account, as the damp and mould issues were recurring and the landlord’s surveyors made similar findings and recommendations on both occasions.
  2. We will consider the landlord’s response on damp and mould up to January 2025 which is when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. In relation to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord has handled her reports of security issues, we can see the resident first complained about the communal entrance door in June 2024. She made a second complaint in November 2024 repeating some of the same issues to which the landlord provided a response in January 2025. These events are directly related and not far apart in time. This investigation will therefore consider these events as a whole from June 2024 to January 2025.
  4. In relation to the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled her requests for a housing move, this investigation will consider events starting from June 2024 (which is when the resident first requested a management move), up to January 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. We understand that the resident has expressed dissatisfaction that when she moved in March 2023, the landlord offered her this property which was in the same borough as her ex-husband. This investigation will not consider events from March 2023 to June 2024 as the resident had opportunity to complain at the time but did not do so. We will focus on events starting from when the resident first requested a management move due to ongoing unwanted contact from her ex-husband.
  6. We note the resident stated these events have exacerbated her mental health conditions. We are not able to determine the cause of her physical or mental health symptoms. This type of claim would better suited to the courts. We can, however, consider if the resident was likely to have been caused general distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021) highlights that landlords should take a proactive approach and ensure their responses to damp and mould reports are timely. Landlords should identify complex cases which require specialist diagnoses as early as possible and take appropriate action. It also states landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with residents on what actions it has taken, and their strategy for managing the damp and mould situation. This may include interim support such as the provision of dehumidifiers. Throughout the lifetime of the case, including any post-inspections and post-repair monitoring, a landlord should review what advice and support it can provide to residents on managing the damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. It further states that on an initial report of damp and mould, it would undertake an inspection of the property within 10 working days. It states it aims to complete any necessary works within 6 weeks of the initial report, and if a case remains unresolved within 6 weeks it would escalate the case to senior management to be reviewed.
  3. The landlord’s CCTV policy states it must ensure its use of surveillance systems is balanced and proportionate to the impact of anti-social behaviour and it must fully consider alternative options before installing it.
  4. The landlord’s management move procedure states that it does not provide emergency accommodation and would refer residents to the relevant local authority or other appropriate agencies if emergency accommodation is needed. If the residents have an evidenced need to move due to domestic abuse or medical needs that make the home unusable, including mental health needs, it would consider a management move. For a domestic abuse case it would require a MARAC referral letter to support the resident’s application for a management move. The case would be reviewed every 6 months to see if the resident should remain on the waiting list for management moves.

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

  1. On multiple occasions the landlord has not acted in good time to follow up on recommendations from survey reports. In November 2023 the surveyor recommended fitting pacifier vents and a PIV unit as well as checking the extractor fans. Despite the resident making a complaint the landlord did not follow up on these actions, only carrying out a mould wash and wall decoration.
  2. A second survey carried out a year later in November 2024 again identified similar ventilation issues. The surveyor also recommended fitting pacifier vents in the bedrooms and upgrading the extractor fans, which the landlord has not done to date. There have been missed opportunities to improve the ventilation in the flat.
  3. There was also a delay in following up with a specialist survey which the landlord has already acknowledged in its stage 2 response of January 2025.
  4. In total the landlord has offered the resident compensation of £330, of which £250 was paid to the resident in December 2023. The new offer of an additional £80 is not, in our view, sufficient to reflect the significant delay (from November 2023 to January 2025) in following up on previous surveyor recommendations to improve the ventilation, which remains unacknowledged by the landlord.
  5. We understand the resident has initiated a disrepair claim which is in the pre-action stage and the parties have not agreed on the scope of repair works, which is still being negotiated. In our opinion however, the landlord should have acted on the ventilation issues once identified in November 2023, and should now offer to do work on this issue. Accordingly we have made a recommendation below.
  6. Regarding the damaged items, the landlord has asked the resident to make a claim through its liability insurer and has sent her the necessary documents, which is reasonable.
  7. Overall we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in particular in its delay to follow up on recommendations from damp and mould surveys.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of security concerns including issues about the communal entrance door, the trade button, the front door to her flat, and a lack of CCTV.

  1. The landlord’s engineer identified in January 2024 that the communal entrance door should be replaced and repeated this recommendation in May 2024. The landlord has already acknowledged it delayed in starting and processing the quotation for replacement.
  2. Although the landlord did temporary fixes and repairs while waiting for the replacement, and was able to confirm the communal door was ‘secure’ in the sense it could not be forced open, this was not sufficient mitigation as the repeated failures of temporary fixes could only have caused more frustration and worry for the resident who was seeking a long term solution to reassure her that she was safe.
  3. The landlord has already apologised for the delay in replacing the communal door in August 2024 and offered £510. At the time this was reasonable to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident who was rightly worried about unwanted intrusion at where she lived.
  4. However despite committing to replacing the communal entrance door by 31 October 2024, there were continued delays by the landlord. It did not carry this out this work until 18 December 2024. It has not acknowledged this in its response to the resident’s second complaint, nor offered remedy for the protracted delays.
  5. The landlord has not addressed the trade button issue despite the resident raising this in the complaint. While the landlord may have good reasons for maintaining the trade button for the resident’s flat, it should have provided a reasonable explanation to the resident why it should not be disabled.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining why it could not install CCTV. This was in line with its policy which states the installation of CCTV should be proportionate and supported by evidence of ASB. In this case there was no formal report of ASB nor strong evidence to support damage of the door by ASB.
  7. The resident first raised the issue of having additional security added to the front door of her own flat in November 2024. The landlord acted in a timely manner to arrange a check of her front door and confirming it had adequate and functioning locking systems. It also provided the resident with the option of adding further locks herself should she feel it was still inadequate. This was appropriate.
  8. On the whole, although the landlord has offered some financial remedy for the delays in replacing the communal entrance door and this goes partly towards mitigating the impact of distress and inconvenience for the resident, there was a service failure in the further delays from October to December 2024, as well as not providing an explanation to the trade button issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a housing move

  1. The resident raised a request for a management move around June 2024. Her complaint is that the landlord acted unfairly by initially telling her the chances of a move were low as she did not ‘meet the eligibility criteria’ and told her she had to approach the local authority for more support. However the landlord’s policy is clear that it could consider management moves only in limited circumstances and it required a MARAC letter from the local authority to support this application.
  2. We can see that the landlord’s officer proactively reached out to MARAC to seek clarification in July 2024 and, having received the support letter, it approved her request for a management move on 19 July 2024.
  3. The landlord has also acted reasonably in reviewing her case every 6 months, staying in regular contact with the resident and exploring the option of reciprocal exchanges with other social housing providers in the area. With regards to emergency accommodation as an alternative, it had given her appropriate advice about contacting the local authority should she need this.
  4. It is well documented and well understood that the MARAC is of the view the current flat does not meet the resident’s needs and those of her son. We understand the resident’s frustration and worry about the lengthy waiting time for a suitable property to become available. In our view the landlord has acted in line with its management move policy and taken reasonable action to facilitate a house move for her, and therefore we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her request for a housing move.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of security concerns including issues about the communal entrance door, the trade button, the front door to her flat, and a lack of CCTV.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing move.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified in this report. In the same letter it must also provide an explanation about the resident’s complaint about the trade button.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay directly to the resident the following sums, which must not be offset against any arrears and must be evidenced to this Service:
    1. £300 (on top of the £250 previously already paid to her) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the excessive delay in actioning the recommendations by the damp and mould surveyors.
    2. £100 (on top of the £510 previously already paid to her) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by continued delays in replacing the communal entrance door and not addressing the issue of the trade button.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident to offer fitting pacifier vents and upgrading her extractor fans as per previous recommendations by surveyors in November 2023 and November 2024.