Southern Housing (202501351)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202501351 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southern Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
17 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident is considered vulnerable because she has complex medical conditions. In October 2024, she reported damp and mould in her property. She later complained about the landlord’s approach to resolving the issue. The damp and mould remain outstanding at the time of this investigation, but works have started as part of a settlement agreed in January 2026.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found the landlord responsible for:
- Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property
- At times there was a lack of adequate oversight and timely completion of works needed to resolve the damp and mould, which contributed to a prolonged and protracted process. The landlord’s failure to follow through on commitments made during the complaints procedure, alongside recurring communication failures, reflects a lack of learning. The remedy offered during its complaints procedure was not proportionate given the impact on the resident, and the lateness of the settlement award agreed in January 2026 reduced the extent to which it puts things right.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the expectations of its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures during its complaints procedure and offered an appropriate remedy that put things right.
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:
|
No later than 14 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £390 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 14 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Communication order The landlord must clearly communicate with the resident in writing about what works it will complete as part of the settlement agreement and the expected timescale for completing them. |
No later than 14 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £55 it awarded during its complaints procedure for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that this amount will be or has already been paid. |
|
We recommend that the landlord share copies of the air quality assessment and the independent damp and mould survey completed in June and July 2025 with the resident, if it has not already done so. |
|
We recommend that the landlord consider contacting the resident to offer further support and discuss all available rehousing options if it has not recently done so. This would help ensure the resident is not missing out on potential rehousing opportunities and receives updated advice should she still wish to move. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 December 2024 |
The resident complained about the recurrence of damp and mould in the property, for which she said she felt she had been blamed. She raised concerns about the landlord’s approach to resolving the issue and whether it had considered the impact on her health conditions. She explained that, as a result, she did not feel that she and her son could continue living in the property. |
|
27 February 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed that it was taking action to resolve the damp and mould. It:
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She asked why the landlord was unable to offer her a move, given the evidence she had provided in support of her request. She also repeated her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the impact it was having on her health. |
|
26 March 2025 |
The resident reported concerns about the mould treatment and redecoration works. Specifically, that the works had been completed without the wallpaper being removed, and some work had not been completed as expected. She asked for these concerns to be included as part of her stage 2 complaint. |
|
3 April 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It:
The landlord increased its compensation to £245, consisting of:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate because she did not feel the landlord was taking appropriate steps to address the damp and mould. |
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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- On 12 October 2024, the resident reported that there was damp and mould in her property to the landlord. The issue remained unresolved at the time of this investigation in March 2026. Therefore, we have considered it reasonable to assess the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from October 2024 to March 2026.
- The landlord does not dispute that there were failures in its handling of the damp and mould, as shown by its complaint responses, compensation awards, and the settlement agreed in January 2026. Our role is to consider whether the landlord took sufficient steps to put things right. To do this, we assess its actions against our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- The landlord acted in line with its damp and mould procedure by inspecting the property on 25 October 2024. It attributed the damp and mould to poor ventilation and heating, which the resident said caused her to feel blamed. As per our spotlight report on damp and mould, we expect landlords to communicate with residents about damp and mould in a way that avoids blame and is tailored to the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s communication of the inspection findings fell short of these expectations. Therefore, it is positive that the landlord acknowledged this experience in its stage 1 response. However, it missed the opportunity to demonstrate how it intended to specifically learn from this or improve its communication to prevent this from happening again.
- As part of efforts to improve ventilation in the property, the landlord upgraded the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. While it is stated that the upgrades were completed in December 2024, we have seen no clear completion record to confirm this. This falls short of our expectations for good record keeping, which supports accountability and transparency. In January 2025, a survey identified that the extractor fans had not been installed correctly. This likely reduced their effectiveness and may have frustrated the resident. We understand that the extractor fans were adjusted in February 2025. While this was reasonable, the landlord’s records again lack completion details, which further indicates a pattern of shortcomings in its record keeping.
- The resident initially declined the mould wash treatment arranged after the inspection. As part of her stage 1 complaint, she raised concerns that it would not provide a lasting solution to the recurring issue she had experienced. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns, the subsequent delay was not because of a failure by the landlord. However, this did not change the landlord’s responsibility to keep the property in a good state of repair and free from potential hazards. In such circumstances, landlords should proactively work with residents to identify solutions that can help to overcome barriers to completing necessary works. While the landlord explained to the resident in January 2025 that the treatment formed part of its initial response to the damp and mould, there is no evidence it attempted to provide reassurance earlier than this. By not doing so, it likely missed an opportunity to reduce the resident’s concerns and the delay. The resident agreed to the works in February 2025.
- On 26 March 2025, the resident reported that the mould wash treatment had been applied without first removing the wallpaper and that some affected areas remained untreated. It was appropriate that the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would inspect the works. Under the Code, landlords are expected to carry out commitments made during the complaints procedure. The landlord did not complete the inspection at the time, which fell short of its stated zero‑tolerance approach to damp and mould. This also undermined its commitment to putting things right. It likely contributed to the resident being inconvenienced by seeking assistance from a solicitor, which could reasonably have been avoided had the landlord fulfilled its commitment to inspect the works as stated.
- In April 2025, the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a letter under the Pre‑Action Protocol regarding the damp and mould. An independent inspection followed in June 2025. The inspection confirmed damp and mould underneath the wallpaper, which had not been removed when earlier treatment was carried out. It also identified that mould wash treatment was needed in the bedroom and living room, a full damp survey was required for the rear bedroom walls, and external drainage needed to be checked to ensure water was discharging correctly. Despite these findings, the works were not agreed until January 2026 as part of a settlement agreement, and they were not started until March 2026. It is unclear why there was such a significant delay in progressing these works, which was unreasonable.
- An air quality assessment was completed in July 2025, more than 6 months after the landlord first said it would arrange it. We recognise that some of this delay was outside the landlord’s immediate control, including difficulty in sourcing a specialist and arranging access to the property. In such cases, effective communication is essential as it can help reduce the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. However, the landlord did not regularly or proactively update the resident on the steps it was taking to progress the assessment, as we would have expected. It also did not share the findings with her once the assessment was completed. This lack of transparency likely left the resident uncertain about the status of the assessment and added to her distress.
- We note that during the period investigated, the resident raised concerns about the habitability of her property due to the damp and mould and temporarily moved out for several weeks. While we do not dispute her concerns or the supporting letters from medical professionals who said the property conditions may have affected her health, the completed inspections indicated that the property was habitable. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its operatives and contractors when reaching this view. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the likely distress this caused the resident but explained that the property had been assessed as habitable. It also set out the steps taken by both parties to maximise her long‑term rehousing prospects, which was appropriate given the resident’s indication that she wanted to be permanently moved.
- The resident told us that the damp and mould impacted her and her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any impact on health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. As such, we have not considered this as part of our investigation. While we cannot determine the impact on health, we have considered the overall impact of any failings by the landlord throughout this investigation.
- More than 12 months after the damp and mould was first reported, the landlord and resident reached a settlement agreement in January 2026. The landlord agreed to pay £5,000 in compensation and to complete a schedule of works, based on the inspection recommendations made in June 2025, within 120 days. We understand that these works are currently underway and that the resident has received the settlement compensation. The landlord has confirmed that the compensation was a single figure and not split between distress and damage to possessions. We have therefore considered the total amount when assessing whether this put things right.
- Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. The settlement award of £5,000 made in January 2026 aligns with what the remedies guidance says may be suitable where there have been serious failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, the lateness of the award reduces the extent to which it puts things right, as we expect landlords to do this during the complaints procedure.
- The landlord’s award of £190 made during its complaint procedure aligns with what the guidance suggests may be suitable where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. However, we note that the resident was further inconvenienced after the complaints procedure ended as a result of seeking legal assistance to resolve the damp and mould. This could reasonably have been avoided had the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in an appropriate and timely manner. As such, we have made an award for further compensation. When ordering compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the expectations of the Code. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to issue stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints around 6 working days from when they were made. While this exceeded the required timeframe, it did not significantly affect the overall handling of the complaints at either stage.
- On 9 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that it needed until 24 January 2025 to respond to her stage 1 complaint. Landlords may extend complaint timescales by 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 if they need more time to respond, and any extensions beyond these limits must not be made without good reason. Although it was entitled under the Code to extend the timescale, it was unreasonable that it only notified her on the day the response was due. The landlord then told the resident on 22 January 2025 that it needed further time to issue its response. On 28 January 2025, it extended the timescale due to designated complaint‑handling staff taking annual leave.
- These extensions resulted in a prolonged complaints procedure, taking around 50 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response from the date the resident made her complaint. While the landlord has recorded that the resident agreed to these extensions, they were unfair and did not align with the Code’s expectation that landlords avoid unreasonable delays when issuing complaint responses. The evidence shows that at times the resident was frustrated by the delays, and it is likely that it reduced her confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. We welcome that the landlord acknowledged these failures during its complaints procedure.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response around 21 working days after acknowledging it. This slightly exceeded the required timescale, but we have not seen evidence that the resident was inconvenienced as a result.
- The landlord’s total award of £55 for its complaint handling failures was in line with what our remedies guidance (as referenced above) suggests may be appropriate where there were minor failures that may have caused some distress and inconvenience. We are satisfied that the award was proportionate in the circumstances at the time of the complaint.
Learning
Repair oversight
- The landlord did not always maintain the level of oversight of its repairs service as expected. It may wish to review its processes to ensure it can do so consistently, which could help it take a more proactive approach to resolving issues when they arise.
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- We have identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.
Communication
- The landlord’s records show shortcomings in its communication with the resident. At times, its communication was insufficient and lacked clarity. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can often be avoided when landlords keep residents informed about repair progress and expected timescales. The landlord may wish to review its communication based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.