Southern Housing (202445986)

Decision
Case ID	202445986
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 January 2026

Background

The resident and her husband are joint tenants of the landlord and lived in a 1 bed top-floor flat. The resident’s husband has severe physical health problems. The resident has also disclosed a mental health condition. Due to their vulnerabilities the residents have been supported in their complaint by a representative. For clarity we have referred to the residents and the representative as ‘the resident’. The resident reported that they had experienced an ongoing leak to their kitchen which had resulted in damp and mould. She complained that the landlord had failed to address the issue which was having an impact on her husband’s health. In December 2025 the residents moved to another property owned by a different landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp, and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp, and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak, damp, and mould.

The landlord failed to resolve the leak, damp, and mould. While it carried out several repairs, it accepted they were not to standard. As a result the residents lived with leaks, damp, and mould for over 18 months. They were then moved to another property by the local authority. The landlord failed to demonstrate reasonable consideration of the household’s vulnerability and did not communicate effectively.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint responses were issued in line with its policy and the Code. However, it did not have an effective process in place to inspect the works after completion to ensure they were successful in resolving the damp and mould.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior officer. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 made up as follows: £1,000 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in relation to its handling of a leak, damp, and mould. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is provided by a senior officer.
The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

19 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 made up as follows:

£1,000 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in relation to its handling of a leak, damp, and mould.
£100 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

19 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 March 2025	The resident complained that she had been experiencing a water leak in the kitchen for almost a year. She said despite repeated reports, the issue had been misdiagnosed and only superficial action taken. She said: Her husband had serious health issues. The extensive damp and mould in the property were dangerous given his condition. A contractor had recommended extensive works and temporarily accommodating the residents while it completed the works. The landlord had not acted on this. The mould was spreading. Communication was inconsistent.
9 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: Its surveyor had noted in November 2024 that further investigation was needed but it had taken no further action. It had discussed a temporary transfer but this was declined due to the resident’s health concerns. It upheld the complaint. It offered £135 compensation for the delays, inconvenience, time, and trouble. It said it would carry out a further inspection and book an appointment for the required works.
14 April 2025	Following further communication with the resident about the impact of the issues on their health and wellbeing, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £410. It apologised that it had not recognised the full impact of its failures.
15 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the issue remained unresolved and continued to impact her husband’s health.
11 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged: The leak had persisted for an extended period and had not been resolved. The repairs it had completed had not met the standard it expected. The issue had caused significant disruption and distress given the resident’s vulnerabilities. It outlined lessons learned in relation to contractor oversight and its support for vulnerable residents. It increased its compensation offer to £705. It said it had recalled its contractor and was awaiting a new scope of works. It would prioritise the required works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as the issue remained unresolved and she did not feel the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a leak, damp, and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported a leak in the kitchen in May 2024. She said water came in when it rained heavily. The landlord attended the following day to carry out repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timeframe for completing non-emergency repairs. However, its attendance was prompt.
Unfortunately the repairs did not resolve the issue and the resident again reported the leak in July 2024. It is not clear that the landlord took any action at that time. This was unreasonable. She reported the issue again in November 2024, adding that there was now damp and mould in the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom because of the leak. She expressed concern that this would impact the health of her husband who had serious health conditions.
We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. We will however consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding their vulnerability and any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.
There is no evidence that the landlord prioritised resolving the repair based on the vulnerabilities of the resident and her husband. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will consider vulnerabilities and health issues of a household when categorising and responding to a case. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it carried out a damp and mould survey in November 2024. We have not seen evidence of this. This indicates issues with its record keeping.
The landlord states it raised roofing repairs in January 2025. Again, this is not reflected in its records. The repair records are unclear due to several jobs which were raised and cancelled between February and May 2025. There are no notes to explain the large number of cancelled works. This indicates further record keeping issues.
Notes made by the surveyor in March 2025 said there was damp and mould in the bedroom. He did not refer to other rooms. He did however include photographs which show areas of black mould growth on the walls and ceilings. Following the inspection the landlord raised an order for roofing repairs. The contractor repaired cracks in the leadwork and filled holes in the verges. The landlord completed the works around 1 month later. This was a reasonable timeframe. However, the repairs were not successful in resolving the leak and the resident reported further issues the following month.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicated the resident had declined a temporary transfer due to her husband’s health condition. This is not reflected in its records, indicating further record keeping issues. In May 2025 the resident again requested temporary accommodation due to the impact of the issue and the works on her husband’s health. It took the landlord almost a month to respond to this request. While its temporary moves policy does not provide timescales for responding to such requests, we do not consider that this was a reasonable timeframe given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord told the resident its surveyor had inspected the property and did not consider it to be uninhabitable. It said it would not therefore provide a temporary transfer. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its staff. However, there are no records that show the surveyor specifically assessed the habitability of the property taking into account the health of the resident’s husband. We cannot therefore determine that its decision not to provide temporary accommodation was reasonable.
The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout its handling of the case. This led to her having to chase for updates. This is not in line with its damp and mould policy which states it will update residents at least every 15 working days. That it did not do so was a failing and caused additional time, trouble, and frustration.
The landlord has acknowledged within its complaint responses that the repairs it completed were of a poor standard and that it failed to resolve the leak, damp, and mould. In its final response it offered the resident £705 compensation for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issue. While this is a significant offer, as it did not resolve the issue of complaint, we cannot determine that there was reasonable redress.
In December 2025 the local authority moved the residents to a new home. They were awarded priority due to the residents’ health conditions and the condition of the property. At the time of the move the landlord had not resolved the leak, damp, and mould.
Overall, the landlord failed to adhere to its own policies and failed to resolve the issue. While it carried out several repairs, it has acknowledged they were of poor quality. As a result the resident lived with leaks, damp, and mould for over 18 months before having to move to another property. It failed to demonstrate reasonable consideration of the vulnerability of the household and failed to communicate effectively. We therefore find maladministration in its handling of the reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
We do not consider that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the residents given their vulnerabilities. Particularly as the issue continued for a further 6 months after the final complaint response and the resident had to be rehoused by the local authority. We have therefore ordered the landlord to increase its compensation to £1,000. This is an increase of £295 for the period from 11 June 2025 to 19 December 2025. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Its stage 1 response addressed all the issues raised by the resident and was reasonably thorough.
Following its stage 1 response the resident said that, due to the impact on her husband who had health issues, the compensation offered was inadequate. The landlord therefore increased its offer of compensation and apologised for not considering the full detriment caused by the issues. This was positive and demonstrated empathy.
The landlord also responded to the stage 2 complaint within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. The response was detailed and identified several failings and areas of learning. This demonstrated it was learning from outcomes in line with our dispute resolution principles.
Where the landlord outlines work to resolve and issue in its final response it should ensure it has mechanisms in place to monitor these works. However, the landlord failed to inspect the works after completion to ascertain that they had successfully resolved the issue. As a result, the resident continued to experience damp and mould after the works were done.
Overall, the landlord responded to the complaint in accordance with its policy and the Code. However, it did not have an effective process in place to inspect the works after completion to ensure they were successful in resolving the damp and mould. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As outlined earlier in this report, on several occasions the landlord’s records did not match the information provided to the resident and this Service.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was ineffective. It did not update her regularly which led to her having to invest unnecessary time and trouble chasing a resolution.