Southern Housing (202405905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405905

Southern Housing

30 April 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:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat, and has lived there since August 2020. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident has been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and asthma.
On 15 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord there were several repairs needed in her kitchen and bathroom. The resident contacted the landlord again in February 2023 to report the repairs had not been completed. On 14 and 23 March 2023, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord that the matters remained unresolved. The landlord arranged to inspect the property, but the inspection did not take place.
On 24 July 2024 the Ombudsman intervened at the resident’s request and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024 and apologised for not responding to her complaint sooner. The landlord said:
1. It had identified service failure in not raising the resident’s complaint in March 2023 and for poor record keeping.
2. It had raised an appointment to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould in March 2023, but the job had been closed without being attended.
3. An inspection of the property had been carried out on 14 May 2024, that noted:
  1. The kitchen was in poor condition and needed a number of repairs.
  2. There was no visible damp and mould, but there “may be” mould behind the kitchen units.
  3. The bathroom required a bath panel to be replaced and boxing to be completed.
4. The repairs raised following the inspection were attempted on 5 June 2024, but the resident refused them and asked for another surveyor to attend. The landlord apologised for not acting on this request but stated that as an inspection had been conducted in May 2024, a further visit was not necessary.
5. It would rebook the repairs for a time that was convenient for the resident.
6. It offered the resident £350 compensation for its failings.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 September 2024 and said the landlord did not understand her complaint fully as the suggested repairs would not resolve the issue. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 October 2024 and said:
1. It apologised for the distress it had caused the resident and that its records were “not as concise as they should be”.
2. Having discussed the matter with the resident it would be arranging another surveyor to visit the property.
3. It increased the compensation offer to £455.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that she has experienced problems with getting repairs completed for a number of years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The resident has also told this Service about other outstanding repairs that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 22 October 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues in this complaint have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom

The landlord’s records show the resident reported the repairs on 15 November 2022. The landlord told this Service in January 2025, that it carried out a visit to the resident’s property on 12 December 2022 and raised repairs for the bathroom and kitchen. However, the landlord did not record notes of the visit at the time and there is no evidence that it raised any repairs until the resident chased them in February the following year.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities, which includes:
1. To keep in repair and working order all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and the supply of water.
2. To keep in repair installations provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that if a repair is not an emergency, it will arrange an appointment for “as soon as possible” at a time that suits the resident. While the policy is silent on timescales for completing a non-emergency repair, the resident can expect repairs to be completed within a reasonable amount of time. While the landlord appears to have attended the property to assess the repairs, no repairs were raised, and this was unreasonable.
In February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord by email regarding the kitchen and bathroom in her property. While the contents of the email have not been disclosed to this Service, the landlord replied to the resident on 22 February 2023 and said it could find no information on its systems regarding her kitchen and bathroom, and it would need to liaise with its surveyor.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 14 March 2023, and stated the outstanding issues had caused her to be living with damp and mould. The landlord raised a job to inspect the damp and mould on 22 March 2023, however, the job was cancelled, with no reasons as to why recorded.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 March and 12 June 2023. The resident stated that the issues in her kitchen and bathroom had been reported “a long time ago” and the landlord had already made several visits to her property prior to February 2023 to assess the situation. On each occasion the landlord responded within 7 days and stated her request had been escalated and she would be updated further. The resident received no updates from the landlord.
While the resident’s emails made it clear she was experiencing issues with her bathroom and kitchen, the exact nature of those issues were less clear. There is no evidence the landlord sought to clarify exactly what the resident was complaining about to ensure it was fulfilling its obligations.
The landlord’s website states it takes reports of damp mould “extremely seriously”, it will conduct an inspection within 10 days, and aim to find a resolution within 6 weeks. While the landlord promptly raised an inspection in March 2023, the inspection did not take place and the reasons for cancelling the job were not recorded. When the landlord was reminded that the issue was still outstanding in June 2023, it took no action to inspect the property. This was unreasonable and the resident told this Service it left her feeling further ignored and distressed.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord had any kind of contact with the resident until the following year, and only after being contacted further by the resident. The landlord’s failure to complete a damp inspection and establish the extent of the repairs required was unreasonable.
There is a gap in the landlord’s record keeping from 20 June 2023 to 29 March 2024. It is unclear when the resident made contact with the landlord during this time to chase the repairs. However, in the resident’s email to the landlord, dated 29 March 2024, she stated she had made “several attempts” to contact it and the repairs remained outstanding. In addition, the resident also said:
1. A leak to her kitchen sink had gotten worse, and her water bill had increased.
2. The leak had caused the cupboard underneath to flood. It was now rotten.
3. One of the taps was still dripping and increasing her water consumption.
4. The kitchen had not been completed and there was missing cupboards.
5. The bathroom had not been completed and the hole in the ceiling was causing an “extreme draught”.
6. She suffered with OCD and asthma, and being made to live in those conditions was affecting her physically and mentally.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 5 April 2024 and requested more information. Landlord internal notes dated 15 April 2024 said the resident had requested a surveyor to assess her kitchen, and the mould under the sink was affecting her health as she suffered with asthma. On 29 April 2024, the landlord raised a job to inspect the damp and mould.
On 29 April 2024, the landlord recorded that the resident had said there was no mould to be seen but there may be mould behind the rotten units. The following day, it recorded there was damp behind the units, but the units would need to be removed, and it was unlikely they could be reinstated. The landlord cancelled the damp and mould inspection on 3 May 2024.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 14 May 2024 and identified a number of repairs that were needed to the kitchen and bathroom of the property. The surveyors report did not mention whether it had identified any damp and mould, and it is not clear whether this report was shared with the resident. The landlord attended the property on 5 June 2024 to complete the repairs, but the resident declined the works and asked for a further survey.
The landlord attended the property 3 weeks after the repairs had been identified and raised. While this would be considered a reasonable amount of time and in line with the landlord’s policy, this was 16 months after the landlord had been notified of some of the repairs and this was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024 and apologised for a number of failings it had identified. The landlord said:
1. It had not completed a damp and mould inspection in March 2023.
2. A note on their system stated the resident had confirmed there was no damp and mould. If she was still experiencing problems with damp and mould, she should let the landlord know.
3. A surveyor had attended the property in May 2024 and while repairs had been raised, these had been declined by the resident as she requested a further survey.
4. It had not recontacted the resident after she requested a further survey to establish the reasons for this. However, a second survey was not necessary.
5. It recognised the impact its failings had on the resident and would reschedule the repairs at a time that was convenient to her.
6. It offered the resident £260 compensation for its failings in relation to its handling of the repairs and the damp and mould.
On 9 September 2024, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord and stated the proposed repairs would not address the issues she was experiencing. The resident also said:
1. The kitchen had been badly fitted previously, and as a result, cupboards had started to rot from water damage, and some were missing.
2. The hole in the ceiling caused her property to experience drafts and her heating bill had increased as a result.
3. The leaking tap had caused her water bill to increase.
4. The compensation offered was not enough to cover the increase in her utility bills.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 October 2024 and apologised that not all of the issues had been addressed in the previous response. The landlord also apologised that its records were “not as concise as they should be”, and said:
1. It was sorry the damp and mould visit had not taken place.
2. It understood the reasons why the resident had declined the repairs following its first visit.
3. It would arrange for a different surveyor to attend the property and assess the extent of the works needed.
4. It offered the resident and additional £80 compensation.
The landlord attended the resident’s address on 30 October 2024 to carry out a further survey, but the resident was not at home. There is no evidence to support the landlord informed the resident in advance that the visit would take place on this date.
The resident has told this Service that the survey has not yet taken place. She states she has several other outstanding issues with the property, but she has not recontacted the landlord as she felt ignored. The reluctance of the resident to make further reports to the landlord is indicative of a breakdown in the landlord / tenant relationship.
The resident has also explained that the current condition of her kitchen and bathroom is affecting her physical and mental health. She states she is embarrassed by the condition of those rooms and no longer feels comfortable having guests over. This has diminished her enjoyment of her home and caused her distress.
The landlord has failed to address the resident’s concerns for a significant period of time. When the landlord did act and send a surveyor to the property, this was 16 months after the resident had reported the repairs. The resident told this Service that she did not believe the survey was comprehensive. There is no evidence of the landlord following up on the possibility of damp and mould behind the units, which supports her view.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as a record of the landlord’s visit that took place in 2022 and the repairs that were raised following the visit. By the landlord’s own admission, its record keeping was not satisfactory.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. The failure to keep accurate records has caused the resident further inconvenience and time in getting the complaint resolved.
These failures lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,750 compensation to the resident, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is made up of:
1. £625 (rounded up) for the limited use of her kitchen for the period of 24 months from February 2023 to the date of this report. This amount of compensation is based on 5% of the rent paid by the resident for the period. This equates to: Monthly rent is £519.10 , 5% is £25.96 (24 x 25.96 = £623.04).
2. £625 (rounded up) for the limited use of her bathroom for the period of 24 months from February 2023 to the date of this report. This amount of compensation is based on 5% of the rent paid by the resident for the period. This equates to: Monthly rent is £519.10 , 5% is £25.96 (24 x 25.96 = £623.04).
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication and handling, and as recognition of increased water charges.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 complaining that she had received no update for outstanding repairs. She stated it was “ridiculous” that the matters were unresolved, despite bringing it to the landlord’s attention “a long time ago”. The resident further stated that if she did not receive a reply within 1 week, she would take the matter to the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 March 2023 and stated that she would be contacting the Citizen’s Advice and the Ombudsman. The landlord did not register the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, affecting an individual resident. It further states it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Paragraph 1.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) states the resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such.
The emails the resident sent the landlord evidenced her dissatisfaction with the service she had received. In line with its own policy and the Code, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not register a complaint and acknowledged this with the resident. This was a failing that impacted on the time taken to resolve the resident’s concerns.
On 24 July 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. The landlord’s failure to register the resident’s complaint when it was originally made, caused a 16-month delay to the response being issued.
In its response, the landlord apologised the complaint had not been raised in March 2023. It offered the resident £65 for its failings in complaint handling.
The resident emailed the landlord twice on 20 August 2024 and stated she disagreed with the findings in the stage 1 response and would like to speak to someone over the phone as she felt she was not being understood. On 9 September 2024, the resident sent a further email that said she had received no contact from the landlord and wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2. The resident set out in detail the aspects of the response she disagreed with. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. By not acknowledging the resident’s request, the landlord was not following its policy.
On 24 September 2024, the Ombudsman intervened again and requested the landlord provided the resident with its final response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 October 2024, 31 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days from the point of escalation. The landlord again failed to comply with its own policy.
In its response the landlord identified it had failed to respond within its policy timescales and offered the resident a further £25 compensation for its failures in complaint handling.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord made errors in how it initially assessed and recorded the resident’s initial complaint. This led to a significant delay of 16 months for the complaint to be registered, with the resident seeking the intervention of this Service on 2 occasions to progress matters. Despite acknowledging its initial failings in its stage 1 response, the landlord continued to deviate from its policy position, suggesting lessons had not been learnt from its failings. The compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the prolonged delay and the full extent of its failings.
Had the landlord followed its complaints policy and recorded the complaint, this would have given it the opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue. A fully functioning complaint system at the point could have given cause for the landlord to take a different approach to that which it did and would have given the opportunity to be proactive in tackling the substantive issue. This was a significant failing that caused the resident prolonged distress, and inconvenience, and ultimately contributed in the issues being left unresolved for a significant period after they were reported.
This leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the land to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration where a failure had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from a chief executive, for the failings identified in this report, beyond those it has already apologised for.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,050 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,750 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of repairs and the subsequent damp and mould.
  2. £300 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Carry out an inspection of the kitchen and bathroom of the property and provide a schedule of the required works, including timescales, to this Service and the resident. The inspection should be carried out by a contractor from a different department, who has not had any dealings with the case.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. The review should focus upon:
1. Understanding why its record keeping failed to meet the standards required to facilitate the Ombudsman’s investigation and provide a functional record of its decision making and actions for the resident’s complaint. It should also consider any changes it needs to make to provide confidence in its processes.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.