Southern Housing (202518039)

Decision
Case ID	202518039
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat. She reported damp and mould to the landlord in May 2024. The landlord inspected the resident’s home and carried out some repairs. The resident was dissatisfied with the time it took to do so and stated to us the damp and mould issue remained outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found the landlord responsible for:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

The landlord did not act on all the recommendations of its surveyors’ reports. It failed to share its findings with the resident. The landlord did not give the resident timely updates on the progress of damp and mould repairs and did not always respond to her. The landlord significantly delayed installing an extractor fan in the kitchen. This remains outstanding. While it acknowledged some failings and attempted to put things right some failings were not addressed and its offer of compensation was inadequate.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s offer of compensation for its delay at stage 1 was proportionate. It also delayed agreeing an extension to its stage 2 complaint. It did not acknowledge this failure or attempt to put things right. Its offer of compensation was therefore inadequate.

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 its handling of damp and mould and the associated complaint. The landlord must ensure: 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 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £600 (inclusive of its offer of £315) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to her reports of damp and mould and its poor communication. £100 (inclusive of its offer of £50) for the impact of its delays at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. 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 26 March 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the installation of the kitchen extractor fan is started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 26 March 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a new inspection of the damp and mould. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the damp and mould of the property and produces a written report with photographs. This must be shared with the resident. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 26 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 September 2024	The resident complained the landlord delayed responding to her reports of damp and mould. She said it had attended to inspect the property on 2 occasions and agreed further works. However, it had failed to complete these works despite her chasing it multiple times.
28 November 2024	The landlord agreed an extension of the stage 1 response with the resident. It said it would respond by 11 December 2024.
11 December 2024	The landlord agreed a second extension of the stage 1 response with the resident. It said it would respond by 19 December 2024.
19 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It said: The resident had reported damp and mould to it in May 2024. Its surveyor had completed an inspection on 6 June 2024. Its surveyor had recommended follow on works to the kitchen, hallway and front porch. It had tried to call the resident to advise her that its contractor would complete these works. It had been delayed in completing the works and would contact the resident before 30 December 2024 to provide an update. It offered the resident a total of £235 made up of the following: £50 for its failure in complaint handling. £25 for its failure to contact the resident within its timeframes. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing the works. £60 for its failure to repair the property within its timeframes.
22 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had not been contacted about the works.
09 July 2025	The landlord agreed an extension of the stage 2 response with the resident. It said it would respond by 16 July 2025.
16 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It said: Following its contractor’s delay, its surveyor had carried out another inspection and completed an updated damp and mould report on 1 May 2025. It had instructed a different contractor to complete the works already identified. The resident had needed to chase it for an update on the works and apologised that there had been a delay in completing them. The works had been booked in for 31 July 2025. It offered the resident a further £130 bringing the total compensation amount to £365. This further offer was broken down as: £100 for further delays in completing the repairs and the impact to the resident by these delays. £15 for the resident having to chase the landlord. £15 for its failure to complete the works within its timeframes.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that damp and mould remained in her home and the landlord did not complete the installation of the kitchen extractor fan.

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord inspected the property for damp and mould 14 working days after the resident’s initial report on 16 May 2024. This fell slightly outside its published 10-day target for damp and mould inspection appointments. The report was detailed and included photos, the likely cause of damp and mould, related to lack of ventilation and recommended works. However, the landlord did not share this report with the resident, and she told us she remained unclear about the cause of damp and mould in her home to date. This was not appropriate.
The landlord issued works to its contractor on 31 July 2024 which included fitting an extractor fan to the kitchen and removing vegetation from the external walkway and staircase. However, it did not act on all the surveyor’s recommendations and failed to organise an appointment to lift the floor coverings to investigate potential rising damp or water ingress.
The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates during September and October 2024, and again in January and February 2025. The landlord delayed responding to the resident and its poor communication exacerbated the distress and inconvenience already being caused to her by its delay in completing the works.
The landlord eventually completed a second damp and mould inspection on 1 May 2025. Its surveyor recommended the landlord carry out mould washes, fit trickle vents and a kitchen extractor fan. We have seen no evidence that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the outside of the property and so it is unclear whether its previous order to remove the vegetation on the external walkway and staircase was still required. If this work was no longer required, the landlord should have explained why to the resident and provided evidence of this. However, it did not do so.
The landlord’s surveyor also identified evidence of potential water ingress from the property above. They recommended the landlord check its records to confirm whether this was a result of a historical or active leak. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence it checked its records at the time or that it took steps to confirm if there was an active leak.
Following the second inspection, the landlord appropriately issued the works to a new contractor who did not contact the resident in a timely manner. This caused inconvenience to the resident as she chased the landlord for an update during June and July 2025. The contractor made a reasonable attempt to attend the resident’s home on 31 July 2025, but the resident was not available. However, it does not appear the landlord attempted to reschedule this appointment until 25 November 2025. This added further avoidable delay to completing the recommended works.
The landlord’s contractor returned to the resident’s property on 10 December 2025 to fit the trickle vents. They said the mould wash had already been completed. The landlord’s records lack detail relating to the mould wash, so it is unclear when the landlord completed this. However, it appears to have been sometime between May 2025 and August 2025. The landlord should keep clear records of repairs and be able to provide evidence related to them.
The contractor told the landlord they installed the extractor fan on 22 December 2025, but the landlord later confirmed this was not correct. The landlord has not completed the work as of the date of this report. The lack of ventilation was identified as the main cause of damp and mould and the repair to address this has remained outstanding since July 2024. As such, the landlord’s handling of this matter was a significant failure which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put things right where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In ordering £600 compensation (inclusive of the £315 already offered by the landlord), we have considered further failings related to additional delays and poor communication which the landlord did not identify itself and which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if it needs longer to respond to complaints, it will contact the resident to agree on an extension. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states an extension must be no more than 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints without good reason.
The landlord delayed contacting the resident to agree an extension to the stage 1 complaint, doing so 51 working days after her initial complaint. It issued its stage 1 response a total of 66 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord acknowledged this delay, and it apologised to the resident and offered her £50 compensation. This was proportionate to the impact of the delay to the resident.
The landlord was also delayed agreeing an extension to the stage 2 complaint, doing so 34 working days after her escalation request. This was a repeat of its complaint handling failure at stage 1 of its process. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay or consider that a further compensation award was appropriate. This showed that it had taken no learning from its initial failure.
Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £100 are appropriate where there were repeated minor delays by the landlord. In ordering £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord) we have considered the landlord’s further delay in extending the response timeframes at stage 2 which it did not identify or attempt to put right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s damp and mould inspection reports were detailed and demonstrated the landlord’s good record keeping. However, it should have shared its findings with the resident, which we have explored in its communication below.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it often failed to provide regular updates. Had it done so, it might have been able to reduce the amount of distress and inconvenience caused by its overall delays in responding to her reports of damp and mould.