Southern Housing (202438716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438716

Southern Housing

28 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived on the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, since 2003 along with two children who are now adults. She has restricted mobility.
In 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the property including the living room, bathroom and kitchen. The landlord arranged a survey with an external specialist contractor on 28 September 2022. The contractor found high relative humidity on the ground floor with some spots above 70% (which is above the normal acceptable range of 40-55%), and black mould on some exposed walls.
This contractor recommended fitting two moisture tracking extractor fans in the bathroom and the kitchen to reduce condensation and checking the heating system. They also recommended a list of ‘additional optional works’ including chemical damp proof coursing and replastering; water repellent masonry treatment to a wall; epoxy resin screed to the kitchen floor, and provided price quotations in the same report.
The resident chased the landlord for an update and the landlord sent her this report on 19 January 2023 on her request. It confirmed to her at the time that it intended to go ahead with these works but it could provide no timescales until the contractors had further assessed it.
These works did not take place. 15 months later in April 2024 the resident had an online meeting with the landlord’s staff who provided her with an email address for further contact on this issue.
The resident’s account is that in May 2024, she received a phone call from the landlord confirming the work would proceed. The landlord has no record of this communication.
As of June 2024, the landlord had established an in-house damp and mould team with its own surveyors. On 6 June 2024 this team conducted another survey of the property. They found some black mould in the living room, especially behind the sofa and the resident’s TV, as well as black spot mould on the ceiling and walls of the bathroom. They concluded excessive moisture and condensation was likely the cause. They recommended:
1. Fitting continuous-run type extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
2. Mould wash for the affected areas.
3. Fitting passive vents for condensation control.
The landlord completed the mould wash on 4 July 2024 and fitted the extractor fans on 12 July 2024. The resident declined fitting the passive vents at the time. She explained to the landlord later that she was under the impression the vents would make her home colder and the house was already difficult to heat up during winter. After further explanation from the landlord that the vents would not contribute to loss of heat she agreed for the vents to be fitted on 18 September 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 September 2024 to say the landlord still had not implemented the surveyor’s recommendations from the report in September 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident twice to say it needed an extension and issued the stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2024, explaining that:
1. The new survey from June 2024 by its in-house team would supersede the previous survey from September 2022.
2. It would carry out recommendations from the most recent survey but not continue with any recommendations made in the old survey.
3. It offered £105 in compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and inconvenience, including £75 for the delay in complaint response.
The resident sought a complaint escalation stating that the landlord had previously promised to do the damp proof course works in September 2022 and further, the mould wash in July 2024 had missed some spots around the toilet.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 31 December 2024, explaining that:
1. The previous contractor report from September 2022 only provided ‘options and recommendations’; it was up to the landlord to decide how to proceed and it would not ‘follow the report to the letter’.
2. Its damp and mould team would check if the contractor had completed the mould wash as recommended in the report and would make sure ‘the toilet was also completed if this was included within the report’. It said it would revert to her with an update once this became available.
3. It apologised that it miscommunicated with the resident and it understood that the resident had changed her mind about fitting the passive vents.
4. It offered £305 in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to miscommunication and repair failure, including £75 for the delay in complaint response.
The resident has not accepted the compensation offers from the landlord. She remained dissatisfied with its refusal to carry out the works from the 2022 survey as she felt the landlord did not keep its promises. She states she had not received the copy of the survey report from June 2024 and remained unclear about the cause of the damp and mould, which affected her ability to redecorate as she could not be sure whether the mould wash was only a temporary fix and if the mould would return later.
The landlord has said that the resident’s kitchen was due to replaced in 2027 subject to a further survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider events starting from September 2022 (when the landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould survey) until December 2024. This is because the landlord considered the events starting from September 2022 during its internal complaints process and the key issue in the complaint is that the landlord did not act on the survey’s recommendations from September 2022.
We understand the resident has reported that these events have had an impact on her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman acknowledges this may have been distressing for the resident, we are not able to determine the cause of her physical or mental health symptoms. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts. We can, however, consider if the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.

Relevant policies and procedures

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 a landlord 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 damp and mould.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy aligns with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould.

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

There were multiple issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident including delay in releasing information and offering insufficient explanations.
After September 2022, the landlord did not share the survey report with the resident until January 2023. The resident then received a reassurance that the landlord intended to take action on the survey recommendations in full. The landlord did not make it clear to her that it had changed its decision until November 2024 after she raised the complaint. The only reason it gave was that its in-house team had made a new survey that ‘superseded’ the old one.
The resident had been waiting for about 2 years for the landlord to take action on these works. She was under the impression the problem was so severe that the kitchen needed extensive work to deal with the damp and mould. She had been left in a position of uncertainty and worry for a protracted period of time.
In our view it is not sufficient for the landlord to say a new survey by its in-house team had simply replaced the old one which was done by an external contractor. Those two surveys had recommended works which were significantly different from each other. The inconsistency left the resident in uncertainty about how severe the damp and mould situation really was and what works were actually needed to fully resolve the situation.
The landlord also changed its decision about implementing the previously recommended works without informing the resident, until the resident raised a complaint. The communication is inconsistent and affects the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s management of the repairs.
The original survey report from September 2022 by an external contractor included moisture meter readings and suggested high relative humidity on the ground floor. It suggested the landlord could pay for some ‘optional’ extensive work around the property, including water-repellent masonry works, chemical damp proof coursing and revamping the kitchen floor with a resin screed.
As the recommendations were extensive, it is reasonable for the landlord to seek a second opinion and to review the scope of works. It is appropriate that the landlord should take proportionate action to resolve the damp and mould rather than engage in unnecessarily extensive work, which would also be disruptive to the resident. However the landlord delayed in doing so and failed to update the resident. It took no action at all from September 2022 to June 2024 and only carried out the second survey in June 2024.
The resident tells us the landlord also had not shared the June 2024 survey report with her and she remained unclear what was causing the damp and mould. To give adequate reassurance to the resident, the landlord should now do a new damp and mould survey with a surveyor who had no prior involvement in the case. Taking the most recent survey findings into account, it should then offer a thorough explanation to the resident on the current dampness levels in the property, what was causing the damp and mould, and what work is necessary to mitigate the damp and mould to an acceptable standard.
The landlord should now also support its decision through evidence such as moisture readings to confirm whether the property is in need of extensive damp proof course and flooring works. If it finds that upgrading the ventilation and mould washes will be an effective and proportionate way to deal with the issue, without needing more extensive work, it should explain this to the resident.
There was also an issue about communication over the mould wash in July 2024. Although this was completed, the landlord did not ask the contractor to take photographs and there was no post-inspection. When the resident complained that the contractor might have missed some areas around the toilet, the landlord’s response was that it was checking if the surveyor had recommended a mould wash in that specific area in the report.
This indicates the landlord was not effectively monitoring the work done by its contractors. Despite being in possession of the survey report, it could not give the resident a definite answer at stage 2 on whether a mould wash should have been done in the toilet and it did not know at that point whether the contractor had completed the work as required.
On review of the survey report, the surveyor recommendations were for a mould wash to be done in ‘the affected area’ and ‘1 square meter past the perimeter of the mould line’. This description appears to have caused some uncertainty about which areas in which rooms were to be treated. The report did not contain photographs of the mould growth area.
In this situation, if the landlord did not have photo evidence of where the mould was growing to help identify which was the area to be treated, a more customer-focused approach for the landlord would be to ask the resident to send in photographs of any mouldy area in her toilet so it could review and then carry out a post-inspection to confirm this work was completed satisfactorily.
There is no record to show the landlord had given the resident advice about managing the ventilation to help mitigate condensation, nor that it has considered temporary measures such as dehumidifiers.
The landlord has offered a total of £230 in recognition of the overall impact caused to the resident through miscommunication and ‘repair failure’ (although it was unclear which repair failure it meant). This goes partly towards mitigating the impact on the resident. However, given the protracted lack of action over about 2 years and the lack of explanation on why the landlord had decided not to proceed with the previously recommended works, we consider this is not sufficient remedy for the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty the resident had experienced.
Overall, given the lack of communication on multiple occasions and the lack of clarity on the actions it should take, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Regarding the passive vents, although the landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that the resident had changed her mind and accepted this work after further explanation, it did not offer to do this work again. It is unclear from the records if this work has gone ahead. We have therefore made a recommendation below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

At stage 1, the landlord sought an extension for providing a complaint response twice. This was against its complaints procedure – it should only seek an extension one time at the most.
There was a delay of about 6 weeks in providing the complaint response at stage 1. The landlord has offered £75 to the resident for the inconvenience caused to the resident. On the condition that this is also paid to the resident, our view is that the landlord has offered reasonable redress given the relatively short duration of the delay.

Determination

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.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident the following sums. It must pay this directly to the resident and provide evidence of payment to this Service. These sums must not be offset against any arrears:
1. £300 (on top of the £230 it has offered previously, which should also be paid to the resident) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the excessive delay and miscommunication in handling the damp and mould.
2. £75 (which it has offered to the resident previously and should pay to her now) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in complaint responses.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Conduct another damp and mould survey with a surveyor who has had no prior involvement in the case. They must carry out damp meter readings to confirm the relative humidity in the rooms of the house so the results can be comparable with previous surveys. They must address the question of whether the chemical damp proof course work, resin screed to the kitchen floor and water repellent masonry as previously recommended by other surveyors was necessary. They must share their report with the resident and provide a copy to this Service.
2. Carry out a post-inspection of the property to ensure the mould wash had been completed satisfactorily in all necessary areas and to write to the resident to confirm this, with copy to this Service.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a written letter to the resident with a copy to this Service. In this letter it must:
1. Apologise and acknowledge the failings identified in this report.
2. Provide a detailed explanation as to the findings from the most recent survey, what was causing the damp and mould at her property, and what works it intended to take to resolve the damp and mould issue.
3. Provide reassurance that should the damp and mould situation deteriorate that it would undertake to do more work as necessary and give the resident information on how to report this.
4. Offer the resident advice on managing ventilation in the property with a view to mitigate the damp and mould.

Recommendations

Depending on pending survey findings, the landlord should re-consider making the offer to fit passive vents at the property as per recommendations from the survey report of June 2024 and carry out this work on the resident’s acceptance.