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

Take part in the consultation

Southern Housing (202438252)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438252

Southern Housing

05 September 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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident has a number of health issues which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident had previously reported a roof leak to her landlord in January 2024, and the landlord completed repairs. She again reported a roof leak on 21 September 2024. On 7 October 2024 she made a complaint to the landlord as she said she had to constantly chase the repair, and no one had been out to complete it. She said she was told a surveyor would attend that day and she had not been made aware of this and that the leak was getting worse because of recent rainfall.  She said she wanted the repair completed and compensation for all the stress the issue had caused. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 14 October 2024.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 November 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that the resident first reported a roof leak in January 2024. It stated that the repairs had been delayed due to recent access issues, and it had gone to the wrong address on one occasion. It detailed works completed to date and said that full roof works would be scheduled. It offered the resident £100 compensation for delays and £15 compensation for the wrong attendance.
  4. The resident was not happy with the complaint response and on 13 November 2024 she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she was having to sleep downstairs which was affecting her health. She said there had been 3 miscommunications about repair appointments and the uncertainty around the repair was causing her distress. She said the compensation did not reflect the level of disruption and damage to her belongings. The landlord acknowledged her request on 20 November and said it would provide its stage 2 complaint response by 18 December 2024. On 2 December 2024 the resident told the landlord that fibre glass was coming through the hole in the ceiling which was irritating her skin.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delays, miscommunication and repeated incidents. It confirmed that the roof repair was complete. It said that the resident would need to claim for damage to her personal belongings on her home insurance. It acknowledged that the issue caused the resident significant inconvenience, including disruptions to living arrangements and health. It offered the resident the following £470 compensation made up of:
    1. £350.00 to recognise the impact, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
    2. £60.00 for failure to complete the repair by the 2nd appointment.
    3. £15.00 for having to repeatedly chase for updates.
    4. £15.00 for failure to follow the process.
    5. £15.00 for miscommunication, changes to appointments on multiple occasions without clear communication caused unnecessary stress.
    6. £15.00 for repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she felt the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the level of inconvenience and distress she experienced due to the repeated incidents or the damage to personal belongings.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould affected her health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing in the way the courts or a liability insurer might. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation, and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. The Service can consider the landlord’s handling of reports of the risk, as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
  2. The resident has complained specifically that the landlord did not compensate her fairly for her damaged belongings, including her mattress, clothes, and wardrobe. We cannot make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability. We do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to belongings which should be covered by insurance. Nonetheless, we have investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s compensation request.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a responsive repair policy which states it must keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and in proper working order which includes drains, gutters and the roof. This is in line with under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The policy states the landlord aims to complete all repairs in one visit. It states residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home and garden.
  2. The landlord has a compensation policy which states it will not pay compensation for claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy including damage to belongings (including floor coverings) through leaks, flood, or fire. It states it may consider paying compensation when its service failure, or that of a contractor working on its behalf, has directly caused damage to a resident’s belongings, and it was not reasonable to expect the damage to be covered by their home contents insurance.
  3. The landlords file confirms that the resident reported a roof leak in January 2024 which the landlord repaired. There are no further reports of a roof leak until the resident reported one on 21 September 2024. The landlord’s responsive repair policy does not specify a response time for roof repairs (it only provides response times for emergency repairs, make safe within 6 hours). It states, “we aim to complete all repairs in one visit and certainly want it to take as little time as possible.” The landlords file states the roof repair was completed on 10 December 2024 which was 80 days after the resident’s report on 21 September.
  4. As set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to complete repairs within a reasonable time frame and what is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case. It is acknowledged that various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should, however, be able to show that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it could to resolve issues appropriately.
  5. It is also acknowledged that roof repairs can be complex and it is understandable that the landlord was unable to complete the roof repair in one visit. However, the repair delay was avoidable as it was due to the landlord’s poor communication and appointment management which was unreasonable. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its miscommunication and changes to appointments which was appropriate.
  6. The landlord’s initial response to the roof leak was also delayed. The evidence shows on 26 September 2024 it scheduled a repair attendance for 4 October 2024. However, an internal email shows that on 15 October the contractor told the landlord it had not raised the inspection request correctly. This error delayed progress of the repair because the attendance was not scheduled until 24 October 2024 which was almost 3 weeks after the original date of 4 October 2024.
  7. The resident repeatedly told the landlord about the level of inconvenience and disruption she experienced. On 26 September 2024 the resident reported having to sleep downstairs as the leak had soaked her mattress. On 4 October 2024 the landlord recorded that the “resident is having to change a bucket from the leak daily and is having to climb up a ladder to do this as it’s above her wardrobe and she suffers with back issues so is dangerous.” The landlord acknowledged that its miscommunications affected the resident and the ‘profound’ impact the issue had had on her which was appropriate.
  8. The resident also told the landlord that the damp and mould was affecting her health. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment, given the documented health risk from damp and mould. However the landlord failed to demonstrate that it assessed any additional risk to the resident. In addition, in recognition of potential impact to the resident’s health the landlord should have provided the resident with details of its own insurance policy to enable her to progress a claim if she wished.
  9. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered alternative accommodation for the resident due to the level of disruption the resident was experiencing and as the damp and mould was a health and safety hazard. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “should it be identified that if damp and mould pose any risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of the customer an interim move from the home (decant) will be discussed immediately.” There is no evidence to show that this was considered, or an explanation provided as to why it was not considered necessary. The failure to apply its own policy showed was a lack of regard for the residents’ vulnerability.
  10. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord multiple times about her health issues. The landlord however later told us that no vulnerabilities were recorded in this case. This inconsistency raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and its approach to recognising and responding to vulnerability. Landlords are expected to identify and record vulnerabilities so that decisions and actions reflect the individual circumstances of residents. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider how it could escalate solutions to address the ongoing risks more promptly. It is recommended the landlord update its systems to reflect the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident’s agreement.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that she would need to claim on her home insurance for damaged personal belongings. However, while this approach is in line with its compensation policy the policy also states it will consider paying compensation when its service failure has directly caused damage a resident’s belongings. As the landlord admitted it was responsible for delays (which might have contributed to mould damage) it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with details of its public liability insurance to enable her to make a claim for the damage to personal belongings. By not considering this element of its own policy the landlord missed an opportunity to ‘put the customer first’ and fairly consider the residents compensation request and provide timely redress.
  12. It is noted that the resident also reported floor covering that had been damaged by the leak in January 2024 and the landlord had not addressed this. The resident stated that the floor covering was a trip hazard. The file indicates that the resident has been advised by the landlord that the flooring is her responsibility. The file does not provide sufficient information to assess the resident’s flooring request however she has raised a health and safety concern regarding the trip hazard and it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to complete an inspection to determine the appropriate course of action.
  13. While the landlord apologised for delays and miscommunications and offered the resident total compensation of £470, this did not reflect its lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerability and failure to consider alternative accommodation which likely added to the resident’s frustration and distress. The landlord also missed an opportunity to apply its own compensation policy and take a customer centred approach when considering the residents compensation request.
  14. It is our view therefore that, although the landlord has made efforts to offer redress to the resident, its offer in relation to the inconvenience and distress caused to her was not proportionate to the effect of its above failures on the resident. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. This sum reflects the fact that, due to her vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities. The landlord is also ordered to reconsider the resident’s compensation claim for mould damage to personal belongings or provide details of its liability insurer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the roof leak.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the further failings identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident:
    1.  additional compensation of £100
    2. the sum of £470 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord should either consider the residents compensation request in line with its compensation policy or provide the resident with its liability insurers details in relation to her claim for damage to personal belongings.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord takes the following action:

  1. provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details in relation to a potential claim for any effect on her health.
  2. complete an inspection of the floor tiles that the resident stated had been damaged by the leak in January 2024 and remain a trip hazard. It should write to the resident setting out the outcome of that inspection and any action it plans to take (if appropriate) along with timescales for such action.
  3. update its systems to reflect the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident’s agreement.