Southern Housing (202441914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441914

Southern Housing

31 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould
2. leaks
3. window repairs
4. damage to personal belongings

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom first floor flat with her partner and 3 children.
Between May 2023 and May 2024 the resident raised repairs with the landlord. On 1 May 2024 the resident made a formal complaint about the lack of action saying that there was damp and mould in her home which had damaged some of her personal possessions. She also said some windows were not safe and there had been various leaks.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 11 November 2024 and summarised the background and actions it had taken. It said:
1. after a report of damp and mould in April 2024 it conducted various works which were completed on 20 August 2024 – it apologised for the length of time taken
2. a new damp and mould process had been established, and it would continue to monitor the resident’s home
3. it was told about problems with windows in January 2024 and repairs were completed to the windows in September 2024 – it apologised for the length of time taken
4. there were no reports of any leaks since January 2024
5. its compensation did not cover damage to personal items and the resident should claim via her own content insurance policy – alternatively, she could make a claim via the landlord’s insurer
6. the complaint was upheld, and it would:
  1. inspect the resident’s bathroom relating to the build-up of mould
  2. apologised for the length of time to complete repairs
  3. pay compensation of £500 broken down as:

(1) £250 for the overall time, trouble and inconvenience

(2) £100 for the failure to respond to the complaint within policy timescales

(3) £60 for the failure to follow process relating to the window repairs

(4) £60 for the delay in addressing damp and mould

(5) £15 for the time and effort in chasing for updates

(6) £15 for the miscommunication and lack of clear updates relating to dehumidifiers

The resident escalated her complaint on 12 November 2024 and said despite the stage 1 complaint response saying work was completed this was not the case. She also said that her children’s health had been affected by the damp and mould. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2025, it said:
1. works to the bathroom and kitchen were undertaken by its contractor on 20 August 2024
2. a surveyor visit was scheduled for 27 January 2025 to identify and resolve any structural issues contributing to the damp and mould build up
3. it apologised for the impact this was having on the resident’s family and wellbeing
4. a case handler would oversee the damp and mould inspection and ensure that actions are completed
5. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it needed to assess the damp and mould within the flat
6. it apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and offered to increase the compensation by £25
Following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection that recommended various actions including, mould treatment and fitting new vents and extractor fans.
The resident referred her case to the Ombudsman on 17 January 2025. To resolve the complaint she wanted an increase to the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that she has had ongoing issues since 2017. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner (usually within 12 months). As the resident raised her formal complaint on 1 May 2024 this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of repair issues from 1 May 2023.
This investigation will focus on the time between 1 May 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 17 January 2025. We did consider if it was fair to look at issues following its stage 2 complaint response. However, it is our view that any concerns about the landlord’s action or inaction following the stage 2 complaint response would be a ‘new’ complaint. In the interest of fairness we would usually investigate issues that have gone through the landlord’s complaint procedure, this is to allow the landlord an opportunity to respond and resolve any concerns.
We understand that the resident has raised concerns about her intercom and a gas leak. However, these issues were not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, this investigation has focussed on the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint which was responded to on 17 January 2025. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to our involvement.
The resident has also said that her and her family’s health has been impacted due to the issues raised in her complaint. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or if a landlord’s actions may have impacted the health of a resident. These issues may be better dealt with at court. We will consider if the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and vulnerabilities when dealing with the issues raised.

Damp and mould

The resident called the landlord on 5 January 2024 to report that there had been a build up of mould in her property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that a visual inspection will take place within 10 working days of the initial report. However, this did not happen. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress.
A “dynamic case” was raised on 30 January 2024 for damp and mould, but no further action was taken until the resident chased the landlord on 19 February 2024. The resident said that mould was causing damage to her personal possessions and that her daughter had an anxiety disorder which was impacted by the ongoing damp and mould. The landlord confirmed that a survey would be conducted on 6 March 2024.
This did not follow the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says that where property conditions may have an adverse health impact it will:
1. gather initial details of the health issue and how the property condition is adversely affecting the resident
2. conduct an inspection within 5 working days
There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered the resident and her family’s health conditions when deciding how to approach the damp and mould repairs. This was unreasonable and increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
Following the survey on 6 March 2024, the landlord did not take any action for a further month. The evidence shows that a new job was raised with its damp and mould team on 3 April 2024, but that the landlord’s contractor did not attend the resident’s property to complete the follow-on work until 10 May 2024. When the contractor did attend, it found it was unable to complete the full works which included fitting extractor fans and painting the resident’s walls. The time taken to deal with the follow-on work was unreasonable and further increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The resident chased the landlord on 23 May, 7 June, and 1 July 2024 as the work required was still outstanding. On 10 July 2024 the landlord contacted a new contractor to complete the relevant follow-on works. These works were booked for 23 July 2024.
In the landlord’s damp and mould policy it says that the landlord will keep the resident updated on the progress of works, and this should be at least every 5 days. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord followed this part of its policy. Instead the evidence shows that it was left to the resident to consistently chase the landlord for updates and to complete the works. This was unreasonable and increased the distress that she was already feeling.
These communication issues were further compounded by the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated on the need for a dehumidifier. Between 10 July and 5 August 2024 the resident was first told that a dehumidifier would be needed, but then this need was removed without any explanation or update to the resident. This led the resident to chase the landlord for the dehumidifier and caused her further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord received a report to say that all the relevant follow-on work had been completed by 20 August 2024. This was 7 months after the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in her home. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that if the issue has not been resolved within 6 weeks of the initial report it should escalate the case to its director setting out:
1. the reasons the matter was not resolved, including any blockages to progress
2. solutions to overcome barriers
3. whether an action plan needs to be reviewed
4. whether temporary accommodation should be provided
We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord followed its policy to escalate the case. This contributed to the time taken to complete the work and the increased distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
As part of her complaint escalation on 12 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that mould had come back in her bathroom. She also explained that she was worried about her child’s health as despite the work conducted mould in her child’s bedroom had got increasingly worse. The resident followed this up with a further message on 27 November 2024 to say that black mould was appearing all over her home.
Despite these reports, the landlord failed to arrange an inspection for the damp and mould problem for 2 months. A new inspection for the issues was arranged for 27 January 2025. This was a repeated failure by the landlord as it did not follow its damp and mould policy to arrange inspections within 10 working days, nor did it take account of the resident’s individual circumstances and concerns about her family’s health. The lack of learning from its complaint process by the landlord meant there was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
The inspection took place on 27 January 2025 and new works were recommended to treat the new appearance of mould within the home. It is our understanding that these works were completed by 30 April 2025.
In summary the landlord failed to follow its damp and mould policy which caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. This distress and inconvenience was worsened by the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident regularly and effectively. The time taken to complete the initial inspection (2 months), and the follow-on works (5 months), was unreasonable. This amounts to maladministration.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it offered £250 for the “overall” time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to all the issues upheld. The landlord upheld 2 complaints as part of its complaint process. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the £250 should be divided equally between the 2 upheld complaints. This would mean a total of £215 was offered for the failures relating to damp and mould broken down as:
1. £125 for the time, trouble and inconvenience
2. £60 for the time taken to address the damp and mould
3. £15 for the miscommunication about the dehumidifier
4. £15 as the resident needed to regularly contact it for updates
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can offer up to a maximum of £50 for delays to a repair – calculated as £10 plus £2 per day until the repair is completed. However, discretionary compensation can be considered where the time taken to complete the repair exceeds this maximum amount.
In its policy the landlord says that discretionary amounts should be based on our remedies guidance. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which causes a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 would be appropriate.
In this case the resident was left to deal with damp and mould issues over 7 months. During this time she highlighted to the landlord that she was worried about her and her children’s health. The landlord’s failures increased this worry for the resident and caused a significant amount of distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to make a total payment of £600 inclusive of the £215 already offered.
We also considered if it was appropriate to order the landlord to review its offer of training for staff dealing with damp and mould issues. However, since the resident’s complaint the landlord has undergone and is continuing a review of its handling of damp and mould cases. Therefore, we are satisfied it is committed to continuously learning and putting steps in place to improve its actions.

Leaks

The landlord’s repair policy says that emergency repairs will be made safe within 6 hours of a report. Any follow-on jobs would be completed as soon as possible. For any other repair type the landlord will arrange an appointment as soon as possible at a time that suits the resident.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord received a report from a contractor working at the resident’s property that there was a leak within the bathroom. This was not reported as an emergency repair. The resident was told that an appointment had been arranged for 16 May 2023. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s repair policy says that where an appointment is missed, it will call the resident. If there is no answer, then it will leave a card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange the repair. If no response is received within 7 days, it will cancel the repair.
The job on 16 May 2023 could not be completed due to access issues. However, the landlord followed its repair policy, and the evidence shows that a card was left for the resident following a call by the contractor. This was reasonable.
The bathroom leak was raised again following the resident’s report on 6 June 2023. A job was arranged and attended to on 3 July 2023. The bathroom leak was fixed at this appointment. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
On 7 December 2023 the resident reported that an extractor fan was leaking water on her bathroom floor. The landlord attended on 12 December 2023, and a follow-on job was recorded to check an outlet vent as the extractor fan had no issues. This was reasonable and aligned with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The follow-on job was booked for 2 January 2024. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2024 as no operative had attended the appointment. There is no evidence to show that the landlord or contractor tried to call the resident as set out in its repairs policy. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
A new appointment was booked and attended to on 9 January 2024. The landlord recorded that the repair was complete and that no water was leaking from the fan. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
Overall, there was one instance of the landlord failing to adhere to its repairs policy as it did not call the resident at the appointment on 2 January 2024. This amounts to a service failure.
Where there is a failure that lasted a short duration and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, our remedies guidance says a payment of between £50 and £100 is fair. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to make a payment of £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the failure to follow its repairs policy.

Window repairs

A job was raised to inspect all windows in the resident’s home on 4 May 2023. This job was cancelled on the landlord’s system on 14 August 2023. It was recorded that numerous appointments had been made between May and August 2023, but there had been no access.
While we understand that access issues can cause delays to repairs it is important that there are clear records to show that a landlord has followed its repair policy. In this instance, while there is a note to say numerous appointments had been made there is a lack of records to show when these appointments were, and whether the landlord followed its repair policy for missed appointments. For example, we have not been provided with any records that show calls were made to the resident before a ‘no access’ card was left.
The lack of records has made it difficult for the landlord to show it acted fairly and reasonably. It is for the landlord to evidence its position to show it has followed its repairs policy. Given the resident is disputing the landlord called her or left cards for each appointment and due to the lack of evidence to say otherwise, it is fair to infer that between May and August 2023 the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
A job for a new inspection was raised on 17 October 2023 following the resident contacting the landlord. This inspection was completed within a month on 16 November 2023. On 6 December 2023 the full inspection report was provided to the landlord. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy for non-emergency repairs.
After receiving the inspection report the landlord raised a job for a window repair. This was attended to on 15 January 2024 where repairs to the resident’s windows were made. This was reasonable as the landlord received the inspection report a week before Christmas and scheduled the repair for the next available appointment.
Following the damp and mould survey conducted on 6 March 2024 a new job to repair the windows was raised. The survey concluded that the windows were blown and needed to be replaced. On 12 March 2024 the landlord recorded that the windows were part of a programme of works scheduled to take place in 2026. However, it fairly used its discretion to complete an overhaul and reglaze of the windows for the resident. This was a reasonable step to take to ensure that the windows were fit for purpose in the 2 years before any programme of replacement started.
This new window repair job was raised with the relevant contractors on 12 March 2024 and completed on 19 April 2024. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was working effectively to manage the window repairs
On 1 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that her bedroom windows were not safe as there were no safety latches on them. She said that she could not open the windows for fear of her children falling out. The landlord raised this job to its contractor who measured and ordered the relevant materials for this repair. The materials were delivered to the landlord on 28 May 2024. These initial actions by the landlord were reasonable, it acted quickly to arrange a contractor to attend and ensure the windows were safe and materials ordered for a repair.
Despite an initial appointment being arranged to complete these repairs for 18 June 2024, the contractor had to reschedule. The window repair was not completed until 9 September 2024. This was roughly 2 months after the materials were delivered.
Given the resident was concerned about her child’s safety and the landlord was aware she could not open her bedroom windows, the time taken to complete these repairs was unreasonable.
In addition, there is a lack of any evidence the landlord conducted a risk assessment which considered the resident’s individual circumstances. The resident, who lived with young children at the time, was left vulnerable and unable to use her bedroom windows safely due to the time taken by the landlord. This failure to conduct a tailored risk assessment overlooked potential health and safety concerns. This caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While there were positive actions by the landlord, the failure to act quickly when dealing with a potential safety issue and the failure to follow its repairs policy amounts to maladministration.
The landlord offered a total of £185 in compensation broken down as:
1. £125 for the time, trouble and inconvenience
2. £60 the failure to follow process relating to the child safety catches
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £300 inclusive of the £185 already offered. This takes account of the length of time taken to complete the relevant repairs and the heightened distress felt by the resident due to potential safety issues.

Damage to personal belongings

As part of the resident’s complaint she told the landlord that the damp and mould in her home had caused various personal belongings to become damaged. In its complaint response the landlord told the resident:
1. its compensation policy did not cover damage to personal items
2. personal items should be claimed for on any content insurance policy the resident held
3. if she did not have a content insurance policy and felt the landlord was ‘liable’ for the damage caused she could claim via its own insurer
4. it had attached a claim form for its insurer should the resident wish to follow that route
The landlord’s response and actions were reasonable. Its compensation policy at section 5.1 says that it will not pay compensation for damage to belongings. However, it gave the resident the opportunity to claim via the landlord’s own insurance if she considered the landlord was responsible for damage to her personal belongings.
The resident also asked the landlord to move or remove some items from her loft following a contractor’s earlier attendance. The landlord explained that it could not handle personal possessions of the resident and therefore, would not be able to assist in moving or removing items from her loft.
We understand that the resident contends that it was the contractor who original moved items in her loft to a location she can not access. However, there is no evidence to support this was the case. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to move any personal belongings was also reasonable.
Based on the above, there was no maladministration in this complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould
2. window repairs
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her personal belongings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report
2. pay compensation of £550 in addition to the compensation already offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this is broken down as:
  1. £385 (in addition to the £215 offered) for the impact of its damp and mould failings
  2. £115 (in addition to the £185 offered) for the impact of its failures to deal with the window repair
  3. £50 for the impact caused by the service failure relating to the reports of leaks

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider if it should review its training on window related complaints – with reference to the Ombudsman’s centre for learning on window related complaints, available on this Service’s website. (Window guidance | Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)