Southern Housing (202518113)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house which he owns under a shared ownership lease. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled his reports of damp and mould. He believed that the damp and mould was caused by a poor build standard, and that the landlord should therefore carry out the relevant repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord unreasonably delayed reviewing the resident’s reports. However, all the repair obligations under the terms of the lease lie with the resident, not the landlord. It was not responsible for the works to reduce damp and mould in the property. In response to the complaint, the landlord completed an advisory inspection, which set out the works the resident would need to complete to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord could have better managed the resident’s expectations by reiterating his repair responsibilities and his option to claim through the building warranty provider. Nonetheless, the compensation the landlord offered was enough to put things right.
7. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint in line with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). But the compensation offered was enough to put things right.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 have not considered

8. It is not our role to assess whether there are problems with the build standard of the property. We also do not determine whether there is a latent defect (a defect in the build which only became apparent after the initial defect period). That would be a matter for the insurer, who provides a warranty for the property, or for the courts. Our role is to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports. This means we will not determine whether a latent defect caused damp and mould as part of this investigation.
9. The resident is seeking compensation for harm to his son’s health because of damp and mould. The courts are best placed to deal with disputes related to personal injury as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause of any injury, how long it might last, and the liability for any injury. This means we will not assess any reports of personal injury as part of this investigation.

Assessment

10. The resident reported damp and mould in other properties on the development from 2024 onwards. We will only consider the resident’s reports about his own property. The landlord said the resident reported mould in January 2025, and we have no evidence of any earlier reports. We also did not see evidence that the resident disputed this during the complaint process. So, we have considered the landlord’s actions from January 2025 onwards.
11. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident on 3 February 2025. It explained that it had completed previous works on the estate (which were outside of the development’s defect liability period) as a goodwill gesture. It said it would raise a claim with the warranty provider on the resident’s behalf if he was able to provide evidence of a structural defect causing the damp and mould and asked how he would like to proceed. The resident responded the same day. He said there had been damp and mould in multiple rooms, and it appeared in the loft that year. He said he believed that was evidence of a building defect, and it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate and resolve the issue. The landlord did not respond, so the resident made a complaint.
12. The landlord did not have any repair obligations for the property under the terms of the lease. Its only repair obligations under the lease related to the communal estate areas. This means it was the resident, not the landlord, who was responsible for completing repairs to resolve damp and mould.
13. Given that the landlord has no repair obligations for the property under the lease, and the property was outside of the defect period, its obligations in this case were limited. We would only expect it to explain its position on any repairs, and to signpost the resident to the building’s warranty provider.
14. The landlord referred the resident to the warranty provider on 3 February 2025. It also explained to the resident that he was responsible for repairs to resolve damp and mould under the terms of the lease. These were both reasonable steps to take. However, there were failings in the landlord’s communication. It has not shown that it responded to the resident’s email of 3 February 2025 or reiterated his responsibilities for repairs until after he made a complaint. This caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.
15. However, there is no evidence that the landlord’s poor communication changed the overall outcome. This is because it had no repair obligations related to these reports under the terms of the lease and it correctly referred the resident to the warranty provider. Consequently, any detriment was limited to the frustration and inconvenience caused by its poor communication.
16. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively. In its stage 1 response, it said that it would inspect the property and advise on required remedial works. While this was appropriate, it did not clarify that the inspection was only advisory, nor did it repeat its earlier advice about making a claim to the warranty provider. We found no evidence that this affected the resident’s overall outcome or significantly impacted him. This is because when the landlord confirmed in June 2025 that the recommended repairs were the resident’s responsibility, he disagreed and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
17. The landlord has accepted that there were some delays on its part and has offered £90 compensation for those delays. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident, but which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. We therefore conclude that this compensation was sufficient given the circumstances of the case.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with our Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay.
19. In April 2025 the resident said he had complained about the landlord’s handling of his damp and mould reports but had not received a response. Although the resident emailed the landlord in February 2025, we did not see evidence that he raised a complaint about its handling of the reports before April 2025. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to an earlier complaint about these matters.
20. The resident made a stage 1 complaint in April 2025, which the landlord acknowledged within 5 working days. On 6 May 2025 it appropriately informed the resident that it needed more time to respond to the complaint. In line with the Code, it agreed a new timeframe and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.
21. On 20 May 2025 the landlord further extended the timeframe for its stage 1 response, saying that it needed additional time to gather information. However, there is no evidence that it had requested this information before that date. It should have done so earlier, particularly given that it had already extended the stage 1 timeframe. The landlord kept the resident informed about the delay, and we found no evidence that the additional time had a significant impact on him.
22. Nonetheless, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 June 2025. This exceeded the 25 working days timeframe for a stage 1 response (including 5 working days for acknowledgement and a 10 working day extension) by 14 working days. The delay in gathering information was avoidable and resulted in unnecessary delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, which was unreasonable.
23. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with the Code. It acknowledged his complaint within 4 working days and responded 16 working days later, which was reasonable.
24. In its stage 1 response the landlord correctly acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered compensation to the resident. Overall, these failures did not have significant impact on the resident or the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. As such, the £50 compensation offered to the resident for the complaint handling failing was a reasonable and proportionate amount, reflecting the impact on him. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for such failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord has failed to provide all the records relevant to this complaint. For example, it has referred in its complaint responses to reports in January and April 2025. Those reports are entirely absent from the information the landlord has provided. This is not in line with its obligation to provide information under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The landlord would benefit from the introduction of centralised record keeping, or a review of its existing record keeping practices to ensure it is able to meet its obligations under the Scheme.

Communication

26. The landlord appropriately updated the resident about the delay in issuing its complaint response and acknowledged its failure to reply to his February 2025 email. This was good practice.