Southern Housing (202453288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453288

Southern Housing

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. Request for a management move.

Background

At the time of the events complained about the resident was an assured tenant for a bedsit flat owned by the landlord. She lived at the property with her partner who was a joint tenant. The landlord recorded that she and her partner had multiple mental health vulnerabilities.
On 16 January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that she had reported severe damp and mould to it which it was not responding to. She said the damp and mould had damaged fittings across the property and their personal belongings. She also said it had worsened her and her partner’s mental health, in particular his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024. It acknowledged delays in arranging a damp and mould survey and in temporarily moving the resident and her partner so repairs could take place. It had accepted them for a management move and it would continue to discuss options with them. It offered a total of £1,366 as compensation. It told the resident she would need to claim on her contents insurance for their damaged personal belongings.
On 2 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She stated the damp and mould had returned in the property and she needed to pay for their belongings to be put in storage. She asked it to confirm whether she was still on its management transfer list.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025. It said its inspection on 8 January 2025 had recommended further work but the resident had refused access due to the impact on her and her partner’s mental health. It would offer a temporary move as a reasonable adjustment and its housing officer had discussed the status of the managed move with her. It increased the total compensation offer to £1,626 in recognition of the damp and mould returning.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated it to this Service to investigate. She confirmed to us the landlord moved her and her partner to a different property on 7 July 2025, but she remains unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and it not reimbursing them for their damaged personal belongings and expenses.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident told this Service the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould worsened her and her partner’s mental health including his OCD. She said the stress and effect on her mental health meant she needed to be admitted to the local hospital’s crisis team.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her or her partner’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The landlord’s responsive repair policy and damp and mould procedure confirm it is responsible for inspecting reports of damp and mould in rented homes it owns and carrying out relevant repairs to the structure of the property.
In the resident’s initial complaint on 16 January 2024 she told the landlord:
1. The whole property was affected by damp and mould and they do not have space to store belongings to prevent them from being damaged. They had already needed to throw out clothing and furniture.
2. The level of damp had caused many fittings such as the oven, cupboard hinges and window handle to stop working correctly. The fuse board for the property was exposed to damp which she considered was a hazard.
3. The property could not be heated easily and they needed to spend money on additional heating and dehumidifiers.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 17 January 2024. From the available records it is unclear when the resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord. In its stage 1 response it said she reported it “in November 2023”. Its internal emails of 9 January 2024 stated it had sent the issue to a surveyor on 20 November 2023 but it had taken no action. Thus, at minimum it took 39 working days for the landlord to inspect the property after she first reported damp and mould. This is not in accordance with its damp and mould procedure, which says in all instances the inspection should take place within 10 working days.
In the inspection of 17 January 2024 the landlord found evidence of damp and mould in all rooms including the external storage unit which was part of the property. It concluded the property was overall in poor condition with most issues in the bedsit area and kitchen due to ineffective ventilation, blown double glazing and possible penetrative damp. The report recommended the following work:
1. Removal of flooring across the property to investigate possible water ingress and adding an insulated underlay to the bedsit area.
2. Adding dry-lining to the walls of the bedsit area.
3. Replacement of the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. Replacement of blown double glazing units across the property.
5. Replacement of any fixtures and fittings which had corroded due to condensation.
The landlord’s inspection report advised the nature of the repairs would be intrusive and there would appear to be “immediate health and safety concerns which might impact the residents”. It said the resident and her partner would need to be temporarily moved for a period of around 2 weeks whilst repairs were carried out. From the available records the landlord did not temporarily move the resident and her partner until around 30 March 2024 and it did not complete the repairs until 30 April 2024, approximately 15 weeks later.
This was not in accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure which said it will aim to complete any necessary works within 6 weeks. It told this Service that there was difficulty finding suitable temporary accommodation as it needed to be self-catering due to the resident’s partner’s OCD and pet-friendly. We recognise the resident’s requirements and the extensive nature of the repairs may have reasonably caused some level of delay. However, we note it did not raise work orders for the repairs until 28 February 2024 and there is no record it discussed her requirements for temporary accommodation until that time. This was already 6 weeks after its inspection so was not an appropriate timescale, particularly in light of the statement there could be health and safety risks to her and her partner.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2024 asking to escalate the complaint. She said it told her it had completed the works but on visiting this was not the case. Mould was still present and it had not replaced all of the damaged fittings. She also said they had needed to move 3 times as part of the temporary move which had been stressful and caused them additional expense. As the landlord had not issued its stage 1 at that time it decided to address her new complaint points as part of its response. This was in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident of 30 April 2024 it:
1. Acknowledged that since the resident’s report in November 2023 it had delayed in arranging the inspection until 17 January 2024.
2. Said it had temporarily moved the resident and her partner “at the end of March 2024” and told her this would last 2 weeks. It recognised they had needed to move 3 times and the work was not completed when they originally returned.
3. Said it had now completed the repairs with the remaining snagging work being attended to that day.
4. Said regarding damage to her personal belongings she would need to claim this against her contents insurance.
5. Offered her a total of £1,366 for its handling of her case comprising:
  1. £800 for her distress and inconvenience.
  2. £266 for her expenses in using a dehumidifier from 20 November 2023 to 30 March 2024.
  3. £100 to reimburse her for the vets bill she said was necessary as a result of the temporary moves.
  4. £75 for its miscommunication.
  5. £25 for not responding within timescales.
  6. £100 for its complaint handling delays.
In our view the landlord’s offer of compensation, in terms of the impact on the resident from its failings and for her distress, was reasonable. There were a series of failures by it which had a significant impact on her. However, its offer was consistent with what we would expect it to pay in line with our guidance on remedies. It is clear it considered the impacts she had described in her original complaint of 16 January 2024 and later complaint of 19 April 2024 in how it calculated its offer.
Notwithstanding this, we do not consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the damage caused to their personal belongings from the damp and mould was reasonable. Contents insurance will only usually cover sudden and unexpected damage. There is often a standard exclusion called the ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion. The Financial Ombudsman Service’s website states: “Policy exclusions will explain under which circumstances you won’t provide cover – these often include damage that’s been caused gradually. Gradual damage is also called a ‘gradually operating cause’ exclusion in policies. Some damage to a home or its contents happens gradually over time. For example, mould isn’t usually something that suddenly appears.”
As such, even if the resident had a contents insurance policy, the claim for her damaged personal belongings may not have been covered. The landlord should have considered making a discretionary offer of reimbursement under its compensation policy or referring the matter to its liability insurer. It did not do either.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response there is no record of the resident reporting further issues with damp and mould until 28 November 2024. At this time she stated it was returning in the bathroom and walk-in cupboard. She was keeping the vents open at all times as it advised so she considered this was a structural issue. There is no evidence it responded to her email.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 January 2025 reiterating that damp and mould had returned in the bathroom and walk-in cupboard and keeping the vents open was not improving it. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issue due to the stress the previous repairs caused. She also told it that she was paying for some of her belongings to be kept in storage to prevent these from being damaged by damp and mould.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 8 January 2025, 26 working days after she had reported the damp and mould had returned. This was not in accordance with the timescales of its damp and mould procedure.
The landlord’s damp and mould inspection on 8 January 2025 recorded:
1. The extractor fan in the bathroom was inadequate and the trickle vent for the window was broken. It saw no mould in the bathroom.
2. The extractor fan in the kitchen was inadequate and made less effective by a nearby airbrick. Mould was present around a vent.
3. Excessive airbricks in the bedsit are had made it hard to heat the room and the window’s trickle vent was broken.
4. The heating loop of the walk-in cupboard was not working correctly, which it fixed as part of the attendance. The airbrick and lack of heating had caused the area to become cold and allow mould growth.
5. Excessive ventilation through airbricks and poor-quality extraction had been installed following the previous inspection. It recommended:
  1. Mould washes of the affected areas in the kitchen and walk-in cupboard.
  2. Installing improved extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen.
  3. Removing the retrofitted airbricks.
We note that the original damp and mould inspection of 17 January 2024 did not recommend that the landlord install airbricks and instead recommended replacing the extractor fans to improve ventilation in the property. When it created the repair order on 28 February 2024 it included “ventilation throughout the property to be added using airbricks” but did not include an order to replace the extractor fans. The landlord should have relied on the recommendations of its surveyor to resolve the damp and mould or recorded any reason why it had decided to vary the recommended repairs. It did not do either, which was inappropriate.
The resident told the landlord on 10 January 2025 she was unhappy it said it would not be approving a temporary move for them whilst the repairs (as set out in paragraph 24.e. of this report) took place, which were expected to take 2 days. She said it had not taken her partner’s severe OCD into account and he would not be able to cope with the disruption.
The landlord noted on 15 January 2025 it had spoke to the resident to tell her it considered it could reduce the repair timeframe to a single day, so her partner could leave the property whilst work was taking place but she was still unhappy. It spoke to her on 20 January 2025 to arrange an appointment for the repairs, but she refused to give access until it agreed a temporary move. In our view its actions at this time to attempt to complete the repair were reasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025. In this it:
1. Outlined the findings of the damp and mould inspection on 8 January 2025 and the proposed repairs. It noted the resident had previously refused access due to the impact of the disruption on her and her partner’s mental health. It said it had reviewed this as a reasonable adjustment and agreed to offer a temporary move during the repairs.
2. Reviewed the compensation it offered in its stage 1 response. It found its previous offer was in line with its compensation policy but considering the additional inconvenience she had experienced from the damp and mould returning it would offer an additional £220, for a total of £1,626.
The resident responded on 6 February 2025 to say she had been hospitalised. From the available records she remained in hospital until around the middle of March 2025. The landlord said it would arrange the temporary move once she was out of hospital. It could have contacted the resident’s partner, as the joint tenant, during that time to see if it could arrange the temporary move with him so the repairs could take place.
The landlord sent a number of internal emails between 27 and 31 March 2025. It questioned why a temporary move was offered and said it was not required for the nature of repairs and the limited risk from the damp and mould. The temporary move was cancelled on 10 April 2025 as it did not meet its criteria. Though it later told the resident on 20 May 2025 it would look at a temporary move again, it agreed with her on 5 June 2025 it would focus on permanently moving her and her partner instead due to the stress a temporary move would cause. There is no evidence it completed the repairs recommended on 8 January 2025 prior to her and her partner moving to a different property on 7 July 2025.
In line with our Complaint Handling Code any remedy proposed as part of a complaint response must be followed through to completion. As the landlord had offered the resident a temporary move in its stage 2 response it should have honoured this and it was unreasonable to have later withdrawn it. Any deviation from this should have been explained to the resident. Though we recognise there are mitigating factors in the resident initially refusing to grant access for the repairs to take place we consider its later handling of the offer of the temporary move contributed to this delay.
In terms of the landlord’s offer of remedy we consider the £1,626 it offered was appropriate to remedy the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, even considering the delays in resolving the damp and mould following its stage 2 response. As set out previously we have seen there were a series of failures which had a significant impact on her. However, its offer of compensation was consistent with what we may have ordered in line with our guidance on remedies, even considering the aggravating factor of how her mental health condition may have added to her distress.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not revisit the claimed damage to the resident’s personal belongings from the damp and mould in its stage 2 response. As set out previously its response at stage 1 that she should claim on her content insurance was not reasonable. We also saw that its stage 2 response set out in its definition of her complaint she was paying for a storage unit to protect her belongings. It did not go on to comment further on this or say if it would consider reimbursing her for that cost.
We have seen the resident wrote to the landlord with copies of her receipts for the damaged personal belongings and use of the storage unit and asked it to reimburse her for the £1,753 in costs she said she experienced from these. We have seen no evidence it responded to this claim. Our view is that this was a service failure by the landlord and its offer of remedy did not fully reflect the impact she described. We have ordered it to consider this issue again and confirm to her how it intends to handle this.

The landlord’s handling of the managed move

As part of the resident’s initial complaint of 16 January 2024 she told the landlord the condition of the property was adversely affecting her physical and mental health due to the damp and mould. She asked for her and her partner to be moved to another property permanently, saying it needed to be in the local area for continuation of the mental health treatment she received.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2024 to confirm it had approved a management move to be offered to her on medical grounds. It told her it would make one reasonable offer of accommodation based on her housing need and if she refused this offer her application would be closed. It managed her expectations that though it recognised she had an urgent reason to move it cannot advise her on the timescale and that “a move would not be immediate”. This was consistent with the approach described in its management move procedure which says it should make the resident understand it will offer the first suitable property that meets their needs.
As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response of 30 April 2024 it acknowledged it had approved her for a management move and said it would continue to discuss this with her. On 2 July 2024 it wrote to invite her to view a property it intended to offer her as a management move. It reiterated that it would make only one reasonable offer and would close her application if she refused it. Following her visit on 5 July 2024 it recorded she had concerns about signs of damp and mould in the property she had been offered. It asked its surveying team to visit the property and for repairs to be carried out to the kitchen, extractor fans and double glazing before she moved in.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2024 and said the property it had offered her was not suitable based on the medical evidence she had provided. She stated:
1. Her mental health conditions are more difficult to manage without her sole supportive family member being able to visit. As the property was a second-floor flat without a lift and her family member was physically disabled this would not be possible.
2. The property offered had similar issues with damp and mould as their current property. This was not suitable for her physical and mental health and its handling of the previous repairs had triggered her mental health conditions.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 July 2024, in this it:
1. Outlined its management move process is primarily based on bedroom requirements and area. It explained it would usually offer ground floor or lifted properties to applicants with mobility issues, due to limited availability of stock.
2. Stated the medical ground for approving the management move for her was due to the impact of the damp and mould on her and her partner’s health conditions. Accessibility of the property for visitors was not part of this agreement and it cannot rehouse people on this basis. However, it would add a note to her application that a property with lift access would be preferable for her support network.
3. Accepted the property it offered was not ready for let at the time of viewing and needed further work including the replacement of the kitchen. In the circumstances it would authorise one further offer of a management move for her.
The landlord’s management move procedure says if a resident refuses the offer they can appeal this if they consider the offer was unreasonable. It can decide to provide an additional offer of accommodation if it considers they had a good reason to refuse. In our view its approach to the resident’s concerns was reasonable, it clearly considered the reasons for refusing and authorised a further offer on that basis. It also considered additional information she provided and, whilst managing her expectations about what would be possible, said it would keep account of her preference.
There is no record of further discussion about the management move between the landlord and the resident until she escalated her complaint on 2 Jan 2025, when she asked if she was still being considered. From its records only one property became available for a management move in that period and she did not meet the age criteria for it. Whilst it may have been better if it had updated her during this period, it did manage her expectations the process may take some time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 February 2025 stated its housing officer had discussed the resident’s questions about the management move process with her on 8 January 2025. We have not seen any record of this discussion. Following this, 2 properties became available in February and March 2025 but were outside of the area she required. It contacted her on 27 March 2023 to confirm she was still on the management move list.
Around 28 April 2025 the landlord asked the resident if she would be able to accept a managed move to a 2-bedroom property. She exchanged a number of emails with the landlord raising concerns about how the offer may affect her and her partner’s benefits if they were under occupying the property. On 6 May 2025 it agreed to withdraw the offer and continue searching for a 1-bedroom or studio flat for the management move. Its response to this was reasonable and fairly considered her concerns.
On 6 June 2025, at the same time the landlord agreed it would focus on moving the resident permanently, it contacted the local authority to ask if it could withdraw a property it had recently offered it due to an “urgent management move for a very complex situation”. It offered this property to the resident, which she accepted, and she and her partner began their new tenancy on 7 July 2025. This was above and beyond what the landlord was required to do in its policy and was a resident-focused way to resolve the problems she had been experiencing at her previous property.
In summary, we consider that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management move request was reasonable overall. On accepting her application it gave suitable information about how the process worked and likely outcome. It fairly considered her concerns about properties it had offered her and took suitable measures to recognise the urgency of her housing need.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. Review its decision not to offer any reimbursement for the resident’s expenses from storing her belongings externally. It must also consider whether it will offer a contribution under its compensation policy or provide details to the resident of its liability insurer with respect to her damaged personal belongings. It must write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination setting out how it will handle the claim.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £1,626 it previously offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. How the delays in responding to the reports of damp and mould occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Its approach to requests for a temporary move due to repairs and how it will make improvements to make sure these are offered in appropriate circumstances and take account of residents’ vulnerabilities.
3. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.