Southampton City Council (202306049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306049

Southampton City Council

10 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of defects to the property causing damp and mould.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a 3-bedroom house under a shared ownership arrangement. The property was newly built when the lease was signed on 17 June 2022.
3. Over Christmas 2022, the resident noticed black mould and damp developing in the corner/on the ceiling of one of the upstairs bedrooms. She reported this to the landlord on 26 December 2022. The property was still within a warranty period and on 3 January 2023, the landlord referred the issue to the developer for investigation.
4. On 5 January 2023, the resident lodged a formal complaint with the landlord. She stated the developer’s operative had attended the day before (4 January 2023) and found that some insulation was missing in the loft directly above the affected area. The operative had made an initial repair pending further investigations into how extensive the problem was.
5. On 26 January 2023, the company that had installed the insulation attended the property and installed additional materials. On 28 February 2023, a plumber attended and confirmed the guttering was in order. On 1 March 2023, the developer raised a job to clean, stain block, and redecorate the affected areas.
6. On 22 March 2023, the landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response, which included the following:
   1. It explained that the developer had been unable to determine how the situation had arisen.
   2. The landlord apologised and reassured the resident that the problem had now been correctly diagnosed and fixed. It explained a further inspection would routinely be carried out at the end of the warranty period.
   3. The landlord noted that the developer’s merger with another entity and a consequent systems change meant it had not been able to monitor the resolution of the defect closely and it was looking to change this in the future.
   4. Overall, the landlord confirmed the complaint had been upheld due to the presence of the defect but that it had been resolved and no further remedy was required.
7. On 30 March 2023, the resident escalated the complaint. She stated that a visit by the developer the previous day had revealed gaps between the brickwork and the roof which needed dealing with.
8. On 5 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response stating the developer was responsible for rectifications, was carrying them out, and it stood by its stage 1 response.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service for investigation. She wanted all remedial works to be concluded, and compensation paid for her distress and inconvenience in chasing and accommodating the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

10. The resident’s legal relationship with the landlord is set out in the lease agreement. The landlord also provided a ‘Guide to your New Home’ which included further information to assist the resident.
11. The guide states that any faults found with the property between handover by the developer to the landlord, and the end of the ‘defects liability period’ (one year), are to be classed as defects. Any defects should be reported to the landlord who will then liaise with the developer. It notes that more than one visit might be necessary to deal with issues and that operatives might attend without prior appointment if this will solve the issue more quickly.
12. The guide does not give any indication of the timescale for resolution of defects. The landlord does, however, have a service level agreement with the developer which provides for defects to be resolved within 24 hours, 7 days, or 28 days respectively, depending upon whether the issue is an emergency, urgent, or routine.
13. In this case, the resident reported the issue of damp/black mould on the bedroom ceiling on 26 December 2022. It is not evident that the mould was of the extent that an emergency response was required and so the landlord accepted the report as a defect, which was reasonable in the circumstances. It referred the issue to the developer on 3 January 2023. While there was a short delay in referral, it is noted these events took place over the Christmas and New Year holidays, and so this was also reasonable in the circumstances.
14. The landlord classed the defect as routine with a 28-day deadline. Having regard to examples given of emergency and urgent defects in the Guide, this categorisation was reasonable. However, because this timetable was set out in a private contract between landlord and developer and the resident was not necessarily aware of it. The landlord has not produced any records from which it can be concluded the resident was told of this timescale. This would have been frustrating for the resident as she was not aware when to expect the problem to be resolved.
15. In any event, the developer’s roofing contractor attended the following day, 4 January 2023. It identified the issue with the insulation. It considered that condensation was forming in the loft due to rising heat from the house, which was not being held in due to a missing strip of insulation. In turn, this moisture was then permeating the bedroom ceiling and causing damp/mould. Accordingly, when the resident complained on 5 January 2023, it was about the presence of the defect – rather than the timescale taken thus far to sort it out.
16. The developer arranged for the original insulation company to return to site to consider its installation. This was a logical step for it to take. That company attended the property on 26 January 2023 and installed additional vapour membrane and insulation. This was inside the 28-day service level agreement between developer and landlord.
17. The developer then arranged for a plumber to attend to check the guttering at the property. This was done on 28 February 2023 – outside the timeframe anticipated for defects. While it may have been the case that it was reasonable for additional time to arrange the required specialists and access, it is not evident that the landlord communicated the reasons for any delays at the time.
18. The resident reports that she was advised that while the guttering was in good order, the operative had discovered a hole in the roof. The landlord’s internal communications show that it disputes this is the case and that it is unclear why the resident was advised this. It is not evident, however, that this was ever communicated to the resident, and she remained concerned about this issue in her complaint to this Service. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and provide its position on this matter or given that the guttering inspection occurred after the building surveyor’s, clarify whether a further inspection is required.
19. Given its understanding from its surveyor that there was no hole, the developer therefore concluded the matter was resolved save for cleaning, stain blocking, and redecorating the affected internal area, which was not extensive. It raised a job to do this on 1 March 2023, but received no response from the resident to agree a date to attend. When the developer’s operative then went to the property on 21 March 2023, they were told the mould and damp was no longer present and nothing was required.
20. On 22 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It stated that the developer was unable to say how the strip of insulation had been missed out. However, it could confirm that the situation was missed on several quality inspections because the loft could only be viewed from a hatch and the defect was not visible from that point. The landlord reassured the resident that the roof had now been checked and was in good order. It was appropriate that the landlord demonstrated it had sought to thoroughly investigate the matter and provide its perspective accordingly.
21. However, the resident was not reassured by this. She repeated to the landlord that following a further attendance by the developer on 29 March 2023, she had been told there were gaps between the brickwork and the roofing at the property. She stated this exceeded her understanding of ‘snagging’ and was unacceptable.
22. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 April 2023, it noted that the developer was dealing with the further remedial works. It upheld the complaint but offered no further remedy or timeframes for the works. During contact with this Service on 8 April 2024, the resident confirmed that the repairs had been completed, although it is not apparent whether this was done within that 12-month period. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have set the resident’s expectations in its formal responses and to have kept accurate records of repairs, which it missed the opportunity to do.
23. While the landlord refers faults in the building to the developer for resolution during the defects period, there has never been any dispute that the landlord is responsible for them as part of its relationship with the resident. The landlord has accepted that the existence of the faults caused it to uphold the complaint along with its inability to track progress on the repairs. This amounted to an acceptance that there were failings in the service it had offered to the resident. It was important that it made this admission as part of its internal complaints process.
24. As the resident has identified, new build properties can be prone to ‘snagging’, where minor issues are commonly dealt with. However, where this occurs, there should be a reasonable degree of communication and explaining the process, which was missing in this case. It is reasonable to conclude that these events caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Ultimately, repairs took place over a period more than the landlord’s service level agreement with the developer, which the landlord did not adequately explain.
25. Under the circumstances, the landlord might reasonably have offered the resident some compensation to reflect the impact upon her of these events. In the absence of any attempt to offer redress, a finding of maladministration has been made.
26. This Service’s Remedies Guidance states that where there is no permanent impact, but the landlord has failed to fully appreciate the effect on the resident, compensation from £100 is appropriate. An order has been made below for compensation of £250 to reflect the impact caused to the resident.
27. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has reported that personal items were damaged by the mould. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide advice about how to make an insurance claim in relation to this damage.

Complaints handling

28. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it operates a 2-stage approach to complaints handling. The first stage involves a response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2, where it is reviewed by a more senior staff member. A response is then committed to in 20 working days. The timeframes in the landlord’s policy conform with this Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
29. In this case, the original complaint was made on 5 January 2023, but a stage 1 response was not provided until 22 March 2023. This was 54 working days later. This was significantly outside the timeframe envisaged by the policy and the Code. Additionally, it is not evident that the landlord sought to contact the resident about the delay or provide an explanation. This was unreasonable and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She also had to expend time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response on several occasions.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay in either complaint response or seek to remedy it. A finding of service failure has therefore been made and an order for compensation of £50 has been made below to reflect the impact caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of defects to the property causing damp and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300, comprising:
    1. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication and delays relating to damp and mould.
    2. £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
34. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

35. The landlord is to contact the resident and include the following:
    1. It is to provide its position on the reports of a hole in her roof. Given that the guttering inspection which identified the hole occurred after the building surveyor’s inspection, the landlord is to clarify whether a further inspection is required.
    2. It is to provide advice about how to make an insurance claim relating to any personal items damaged by damp and mould.