Southern Housing (202512546)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat with his partner and children. He told the landlord that he and 3 other household members had asthma. He reported a leak through the roof in 2022 and raised concerns in 2023 about damp and mould and outstanding repairs in his property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the boiler and bathroom.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the boiler and bathroom.
   3. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found the landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing the leak and damp and mould in the resident’s property. It delayed investigations and repairs and failed to resolve the issue. It did not appropriately consider household vulnerabilities or the potential hazards in the property.  
5. The landlord did not act on the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and repeatedly failed to resolve his concerns. It did not keep him updated, and the works are still outstanding over 2 years later.
6. The landlord did not log or escalate the resident’s complaint on time and failed to recognise this during the complaints process. It delayed responding to his stage 1 complaint for over a year. It did not address all points of the complaint or appropriately detail the actions it would take.
7. While the landlord has made some attempts to put this right, it has informed us the repairs are still outstanding. It showed a lack of learning and oversight throughout the case, reflective of wider issues. The compensation offered was insufficient in the circumstances.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on his family’s health. We cannot conclude if a landlord’s actions have contributed to or worsened ill health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

9. Landlords must keep properties safe and habitable. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) explains that this includes keeping properties free from potential category 1 hazards, such as those resulting from damp and mould growth. Landlords also must maintain the structure of the property, and the HHSRS says they should take preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of mould, such as by ensuring the external fabric of the property is in good repair.
10. When a landlord is told of a potential hazard, it should inspect the property within a reasonable time. It should assess if there is a hazard and confirm if the property is fit for human habitation under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should evidence its findings in writing, and complete repairs, or works such as removing hazards, within a reasonable time.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

11. The resident explained the property has a history of leaks. On 13 October 2022, he reported a leak in the roof that was impacting his top bedroom. In December 2022, he raised concerns about the ongoing leak and said that the landlord’s surveyor had missed an appointment the week before. At this time, the landlord was undergoing a merger, which it completed on 16 December 2022.
12. From that date, the landlord’s repair policy said it would arrange repair appointments as soon as possible, and at a time that suited the resident. While it did not give a timeframe to complete repairs, landlords should do this within a reasonable time, and best practice for routine repairs is 28 days.
13. The landlord raised 4 jobs to investigate and repair the leak between October 2022 and November 2023. There are no records from these jobs that explain any findings or show if it completed any work. The poor record keeping was inappropriate, is a theme of this case and likely added to the landlord needing to raise repeat orders to investigate the leak.
14. In December 2023, it recorded that works were needed to the roof, and that the property was leaking ‘all over’ with ‘major issues’ to the box gutters and the rendering on external walls.
15. The landlord carried out works for the leak in January 2024, 15 months after the first report. While it recorded on 2 February 2024 that all works were completed, it requested another surveyor to investigate issues including a roof leak or residual water in March 2024. This indicated that it was aware that it had not resolved the fault. It attended the property again in March 2024, but its notes do not show if it assessed the external walls or roof.
16. The landlord did not carry out a further inspection until December 2024, when it noted the leaking was caused by the roof cover flashing and cracked rendering, while work was also needed to the roof tiles and chimneys. In its final response of February 2025, the landlord accepted this work was still outstanding.
17. The landlord delayed unreasonably in its handling of the leak. By the time of its final response, 2 years and 4 months after the first roof leak report, it had failed to suitably repair the roof and was aware of further causes of water ingress which it failed to act on.
18. Throughout this time, it did not update the resident. It repeatedly carried out visits but failed to follow up on works. This caused the resident inconvenience, and time and trouble as he had to chase the landlord for answers.
19. The landlord was aware the resident was concerned that the ongoing leak was causing damage. He first raised this in January 2023, and by 4 February 2024, he was reporting damage to the ceilings, walls and window frames. On 19 March 2024, he reported the ceilings were bowing. There is no evidence the landlord carried out repairs to address these reports or took steps to prioritise the external works given the serious impact to the internal property condition.

Damp and mould

20. On 3 January 2023, the resident reported that the leak had caused damp. He continued to report damp and mould over the course of his complaint and chased the landlord for updates.
21. There is no evidence the landlord raised any internal works to address the damp and mould until 26 March 2024, 14 months later.
22. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident made it aware from March 2023 that there were household vulnerabilities, including multiple family members having asthma. Furthermore, by December 2023, the resident was reporting that mushrooms were now growing on his walls due to the damp, and its repair notes from the time also noted there were major damp patches on the wall due to water ingress.
23. The landlord visited the property in March 2024, but its record keeping was not detailed, and it did not show how it investigated the mould. Following the appointment, it said it needed to complete works including mould washes, stain blocking, window repairs, installing a new bathroom fan and replacing the loft insulation. In May 2024, the resident reported the contractor had not attended to complete the works. Despite this and further reports from the resident, there is no evidence the landlord carried out works to address the damp and mould between January 2023 and its final response of February 2025.
24. This was a significant failing. The landlord failed to act when it was first aware of the damp and mould, and it continued to delay despite further reports reflecting the condition of the property was worsening.

Summary

25. The landlord’s overall approach to the resident’s concerns about water ingress, damp and mould was unreasonable. It failed to show it acted on reports of a potential category 1 hazard or addressed related repairs. It did not show learnings from the resident’s stage 1 complaint and continued to cause delays beyond the end of the complaints process. It did not keep the resident updated, and he had to chase it for repairs.
26. The landlord does not dispute that it failed to address the leak or damp and mould. In its final response, it said its service fell significantly below the standards it expected, and it apologised for this. It acknowledged it had not completed works or followed up on previous inspections. It identified learnings and agreed further actions.
27. Over both complaints, it offered a total of £1,510 compensation for failings in its handling of repairs. It did not separate out what proportion was for the complaint about the leak and associated damage, for the damp and mould and for the complaint about the outstanding bathroom and boiler repairs. We have split the amount equally between all three property condition areas when considering if the offer was reasonable. As such, we have considered the compensation offer for the leak, damp and mould to be £1,006.66.
28. At the time of the February 2025 final response, this had been ongoing for 2 years and 4 months and the landlord had not resolved the issues. It left the resident and his family in a property with potential hazards during this time. We have seen photos from the resident that show significant patches of damp and mould.
29. The landlord acknowledged itself that it had left the resident in unacceptable living conditions. It said it would carry out another survey in March 2025 and ensure it raised any follow-on work orders to avoid further delays.
30. However, the landlord later told us it has not yet completed the repairs, and it had to carry out another survey on 20 October 2025. It said it would complete all external works to ensure the building was watertight, before undertaking internal repairs. It said it agreed this with the resident.
31. We have seen evidence the resident asked the landlord to continue with the internal repairs on 3 November 2025. The resident confirmed in December 2025 that he has had no further contact from the landlord, and it has not started repairs internally or externally. There is no evidence to show that it kept the resident updated during this time.
32. This is unreasonable and reflects that the landlord has not taken learnings from the complaint process. The leak has now been ongoing for over 3 years, and the landlord has failed to resolve it. It has left the resident in conditions it identified as unacceptable for a further 10 months from its final response.
33. The resident also told the landlord that his family were medically vulnerable multiple times. The landlord did not address this, and it told us that the resident had not formally reported any health or disability needs. The landlord failed to identify reports of vulnerabilities, and it missed the opportunity to update its records. The landlord did not clearly evidence it assessed hazards or considered habitability. This is a significant failing given the reports of hazards and concerns raised by the resident about the damp and mould making his family ill.
34. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It did not detail investigation findings or any works completed. It produced scopes of works but did not evidence how it assessed the issues. It also recorded in October 2023 that the property was void and the resident no longer lived there, and it did not correct this until the next month. This likely impacted its oversight of the case, leading to further delays and repeated visits.
35. We completed a further wider investigation into the landlord in May 2024. This looked at cases between June and October 2023. In this, we saw that the landlord repeatedly failed to manage the risks presented by damp and mould, as well as timeliness and record keeping issues in all repair cases. It is concerning to note similar themes continuing into 2025 in this case, suggesting a lack of learning by the landlord.
36. In deciding an appropriate level of redress, we have considered the level of rent and the landlord’s failures, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. There was an increased risk of harm as damp and mould was reported in all 3 bedrooms, and the condition of the property deteriorated to the point that the resident reported mushrooms were growing from the walls in a bedroom in December 2023.
37. While these rooms were not entirely out of use, the resident clearly did not have full enjoyment of the property. As such, we have ordered increased compensation of £1,903.55 to put things right. We have calculated the compensation to reflect loss of full use of the rooms between December 2023 and December 2025. This is based on 15% of rent throughout this period, using average rent data for the relevant financial years.
38. We have also ordered additional compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s actions caused during and after the complaints process and made orders to address the outstanding repairs.

39. In his complaint of February 2023, the resident raised concerns about previous poor workmanship carried out by the landlord to his bathroom and boiler. The landlord’s repair policy said it would arrange an appointment with the resident as soon as possible.
40. Despite the resident chasing the landlord, there is no evidence it took any action in response to these reports. In its stage 1 response over a year later, it said its surveyor would attend and it would arrange follow on works after this. Records confirm it attended that month but there is no evidence that it assessed the bathroom and boiler works. The landlord took no further action to address these reports. In its final response of February 2025, it accepted that the works were still outstanding.
41. The landlord apologised for delays and said a surveyor would attend to assess the property before it arranged works. As explained above, it offered approximately £503.34 in compensation across both complaints.
42. However, the landlord has told us it has not completed works, and the resident reported in December 2025 that the repairs were still outstanding.
43. The landlord failed to assess or complete the bathroom and boiler works for over 2 years while the complaints process was ongoing and continued to delay for a further 10 months after its final response.
44. This was unreasonable and demonstrated it did not learn from the outcome of its complaint investigation. It further reflects wider concerns about repair delays and a lack of communication as identified in our further investigation report into the landlord of May 2024.
45. The landlord’s inaction caused the resident time and trouble, as he had to chase for updates over a significant period. Its failure to resolve the issues after committing to do so in both complaint responses likely caused distress and further undermined trust in the landlord–resident relationship.
46. We have found that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of these repairs. While it was resolution focused to offer compensation, the amount offered does not reflect the extent of failings, particularly given the failings continued after the end of the complaints process. We have made orders to put this right, including further compensation of £300 to reflect the significant impact on the resident.

47. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy in December 2022 were in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022). Its updated policy in May 2024 aligns with the 2024 Code.
48. The resident first tried to raise a complaint on 13 and 18 January 2023, and again on 13 February 2023. The landlord did not log and acknowledge the complaint until 15 February 2023. Despite the resident chasing repeatedly and the landlord’s records showing it asked for the complaint to be investigated, it did not issue a stage 1 response until March 2024. This was significantly outside of the timescales set out in the Code.
49. During this time, in September and October 2023, the resident asked if his complaint would be dealt with by a regulatory body, due to the length of delay by the landlord. In line with its policy and the Code, the landlord should have told the resident at this point that he was able to contact us for advice at any point of the complaint. It failed to do so and left the resident without guidance on the matter and delayed him being able to bring his complaint to us.
50. Following its first response, the resident emailed on 12 May 2024. He reported further delays and asked for it to leave his complaint open. The landlord should have treated this as an escalation request. The resident complained again on 25 November 2024 and 6 February 2025 before the landlord escalated to stage 2 on 11 February 2025.
51. After escalating to stage 2, the landlord responded within 20 days. While this was appropriate, it did not recognise or put right its delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
52. As explained above, we have also seen that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about vulnerabilities and the impact on his family’s health through its responses. As such, it did not resolve these concerns. This was not in line with the Code.
53. Our May 2024 further investigation into the landlord found it delayed unreasonably before responding to complaints in nearly all cases between 2022 and 2023. We also noted several cases where it failed to recognise stage 2 complaints. We have seen these wider issues reflected in its handling of this complaint.
54. These failings caused further time and trouble to the resident. He had to contact the landlord repeatedly for his complaint responses. Its failure to respond in time or address all issues reflected a lack of oversight across the whole case. While it confirmed what actions it would take in its responses, it did not provide a point of contact or give a timeframe for follow up works. This may have contributed to the continued failings after both responses.
55. The landlord did not explain the delay in its complaint handling at stage 1, but it did offer £100 compensation. While this went some way to put things right, it is not in line with our guidance on remedies for failings that have adversely impacted the resident and serious complaint handling delays continued beyond this. Overall, the complaints process took around 2 years. We have therefore found there was severe maladministration and ordered further compensation of £150.

Learning

56. The landlord failed to show if it assessed the hazards reported, or if it established the resident’s home was habitable in light of the reported vulnerabilities. Under Awaab’s Law, it needs to ensure it has processes in place to recognise if there are significant or emergency hazards.
57. The landlord must ensure it follows up on repairs in a timely way. It should provide residents with timescales for repairs and ensure these are followed until completion to avoid delays.
58. The landlord should ensure it has processes in place to recognise complaints and respond to these in line with the Code. If it delays logging or responding to complaints, it should ensure it keeps the resident updated and appropriately recognises the impact of this in its complaint response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

59. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It contained inaccurate information and did not detail how it carried out investigations or show its findings. It did not always record completion dates, which made it difficult to determine if actions were completed. As we have identified above, this likely impacted its oversight of the case and contributed to the need for multiple surveys. It should ensure it is keeping adequate records for all cases. This will help it ensure it has oversight of cases and is completing actions within appropriate timeframes.

Communication

60. The landlord should ensure it has processes in place to keep residents updated about repairs and complaints. It should consider actions it can take to monitor agreed actions through to completion. This can help establish trust between the resident and the landlord and reduces the need for residents to chase for updates.