Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202339900)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339900

Southern Housing Group Limited

4 September 2024


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 handling of the resident’s reports of:

a.     Leaks from the roof, damp and mould.

b.     A rodent infestation.

c.      Repeated repairs to the communal door.

  1. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom apartment spread across the top 2 floors of a converted Victorian house. The tenancy agreement began on 17 October 2019. The resident lives with her 2 children. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, from the evidence submitted, it is clear that the landlord was aware that the resident has asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is a survivor of domestic violence.
  2. On 25 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there were ‘ongoing’ leaks in the property:

a.     The first leak was from the roof down the walls onto the floor below.

b.     The second leak was in the bathroom and into the living room below.

  1. In response, the landlord carried out a mould wash in the property in February 2023 and sent its surveyor to inspect the property on 10 March 2023. The surveyor found rainwater ingress by the bathroom and top floor landing running down the wall into the hallway and living room below. The landlord said it would repair the leaks and then redecorate the damage caused internally.
  2. The resident reported an “ongoing roof leak” in May 2023 and June 2023. The landlord sent its surveyor to inspect the property on 4 July 2023. The surveyor said they would raise the job to erect scaffolding and repair the roof.
  3. On 18 July 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord. She said:

a.     She was offered the property in March 2019. However, the void works had been extended until November 2019 because of ongoing internal leaks. She had been dealing with these leaks ever since.

b.     Whenever it rained, rainwater entered from the roof, through the light fitting and onto her children’s beds, which she had replaced in May 2023.

c.      There was mould in the children’s bedroom, resulting in her daughter developing a chesty cold.

d.     Despite several reports, the lock on the communal front door was still broken. She had moved to the property because of domestic abuse and had reason to believe her ex-partner had found out where she lived. She said the landlord had not taken this into consideration and did not repair the communal door.

e.     To resolve the complaint, she would like:

i.        The landlord to trace the leak and repair the roof. Once completed, it should redecorate the property.

ii.      Compensation for the damaged items, including mattress, bed sheets, rug, clothing, quilt, pillows, and a replacement lamp shade.

iii.    Compensation for the distress caused to her and her children for having been woken up wet at night.

  1. On 1 August 2023, the landlord received a letter of claim from a solicitor representing the resident, who had initiated the pre-action protocol for housing conditions. The letter of claim said it would take legal action under section 9 to section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
  2. On 8 August, the resident called the landlord and asked that it would respond to her complaint. She said:

a.     No one came to fix the communal door, leaving her vulnerable for a month.

b.     None of her concerns were being taken seriously, which was ‘traumatic and triggering’. She had ADHD and found it taxing to chase the landlord.

c.      Mice were ‘running rife’ in the property.

d.     She was worried about her children’s mental health.

  1. The landlord sent its stage 1 response letter on 15 August 2023 and said:

a.     The communal front door was reported faulty on 14 December 2022 and was repaired on 11 January 2023. Another fault was reported on 18 July 2023 and repaired on the same day.

b.     There was an ongoing leak from the roof, which affected the bedroom hallway and the bathroom. A contractor would attend the resident’s home on 16 August 2023 and provide a quote for the works. The work would be booked ‘urgently’ once the quote was received and accepted.

c.      It offered £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2023 and reportedly said she ‘did not like’ the landlord’s response. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  2. The landlord responded with its final response letter on 9 September 2023 (this investigation assumed the correct date should read 9 October 2023) and said:

a.     It offered its ‘deepest regret’ that the leaks into the property caused mould to grow. This was now a disrepair matter, and it was unable to complete these works until the legal issues were resolved.

b.     Regarding the mice infestation, its operative attended on 26 September 2023. Operatives found holes behind the washing machine, kitchen units, storage cupboard, meter cupboard in the lounge area, bathroom around the piping work, and bedroom. All rooms were baited. It would return on 10 October 2023 to seal the holes. It was unable to compensate for damage to personal belongings caused by rodents.

c.      The £300 offer of compensation was still available.

d.     It identified learning from the complaint, and it would:

i.        Ensure repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe to prevent further damage.

ii.      Keep residents updated with work.

  1. The single joint expert inspected the property after the final response letter in November 2023. As the inspection was directly related to the action the landlord said it would take in its final response letter, it is included in this investigation. The surveyor reported:

a.     “An active leak from above; water damage to walls and damp in the living room and bedroom from the roof to walls by the top floor landing and through to lounge and hallway below”.

b.     There were no apparent signs of mould.

c.      Rodent Infestation did not render the property unfit for human habitation.

  1. On 5 January 2024, the bedroom roof collapsed while the resident’s child was in her room. The landlord moved the resident and her children to a hotel on the same day and completed the work to the property on 16 February 2024. It reimbursed the resident for her expenditure during the time in the hotel, including meals for her and her 2 children, Wi-Fi, and parking, which came to £1,100.
  2. The resident contacted this service In February 2024. She asked the service to investigate the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in her complaint. To resolve the complaint, she would like additional compensation.
  3. The resident informed this service that she did not initiate court proceedings. Neither party has provided further details about the pre-action protocol. More recently, in June 2024, the resident reported a new leak from a different area of the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident initially reported to the landlord the leaking roof and pest infestation in 2020 and the communal door lock since January 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, generally within 12 months of the event occurring. In addition, as issues become historic, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate. As such, this investigation will focus on events from July 2022, 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint.
  2. The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her and her children’s health has been noted, but it is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the health of the resident’s family. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord provided evidence related to the resident’s complaint, including communication and repair records. Some of the information had incorrect dates. For example, the final response letter dated 7 September 2023 discussed an event that had occurred on 26 September 2023. The surveyor’s report dated January 2023 discussed events that had occurred in January 2024. Some dates used in the landlord’s final response letter could not be verified in the evidence submitted to this service. This has not significantly impacted this investigation but indicates problems with the landlord’s knowledge and information management, which may cause difficulty in managing ongoing repairs in its properties.
  2. The Ombudsman issued a special report on the landlord in May 2024 (available on our website), which, amongst other things, highlighted concerns regarding its knowledge and information management and its complaint handling. Recommendations were made to the landlord as part of the report and are currently in progress. As such, this report will make no further orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management or its complaint handling.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord is responsible under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp, mould and rodent infestation are all potential category 1 hazards under HHSRS. Therefore, the landlord was required to assess the risks presented by these issues when reported and take mitigating action where necessary.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the property. This includes repairs to the roof, walls, floors, and communal doors. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 6 hours. It would then arrange the repair “as quickly as possible”. It “aims to complete all repairs in one visit” and “certainly wants it to take as little time as possible”. The policy does not provide an expected completion timescale or comment on how it handles reports of leaks, damp or mould.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time said it would pay compensation when there was evidence it had been responsible for a service failure or had caused loss, damage or inconvenience. It would also consider making a payment where a resident had incurred costs or a financial loss.

The resident’s reports of leaks from the roof, damp and mould

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
  2. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord would become liable for a repair (under its responsibility) once it had been put ‘on notice’. On 14 December 2022, the resident informed the landlord about a leak from the roof, which worsened during rainfall and caused damage to the internal ceiling and walls. At this point, the landlord was put on notice and became liable for the repairs. The landlord’s records show it had carried out temporary works. However, the details of what was done and specifically when were not clear.
  3. On 25 January 2023, the resident again reported an ongoing leak from the roof, damaging the property. She requested that the landlord inspect the property. In response, the landlord took the following actions:

a.     It raised a job for a mould wash, which was completed on 6 February 2023, which was reasonable.

b.     It raised a job for redecorating the damaged wall. When operatives arrived at the resident’s property, they realised the leak had not been traced and repaired, and the job was cancelled. There is evidence that the landlord prioritised decorating jobs before addressing the leaks, several times in this case. An order has been made below for the landlord to put this right.

c.      It inspected the property on 10 March 2023, which was reasonable.

  1. The surveyor inspected the property on 10 March 2023 and reported:  

a.     Rainwater ingress by the top floor landing and running down the wall onto the hallway below.

b.     Rainwater ingresses into the bathroom, and mould is on walls and behind the basin. Water stains on the ceiling of the living room below.

c.      As the job to repair the roof had already been raised to the block, no further work needed to be raised.

  1. There is no evidence that the required roof repair works were started at this time. There is also no evidence that the landlord explained the reason for the delay to the resident. In delaying the repairs and not explaining the reason to the resident, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it did all it could to book the repair “as soon as possible”. The landlord did not act in accordance with its repair policy or its obligations, which was inappropriate.
  2. Although temporary works were carried out in June 2023, such as securing the ceiling in the children’s room with insulating tape and clearing the gutter, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out long-lasting repairs to the roof, which was inappropriate.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) says that when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the pre-action protocol for housing conditions, it is important that they do not disengage from the repair issue itself. Landlords should remain committed to inspecting properties as soon as a claim is raised and completing the repairs needed as soon as practicable.
  4. The resident initiated the pre-action protocol for housing conditions on 1 August 2023. In its 15 August 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord said it would arrange for a contractor to inspect the resident’s property and quote for the works. Once the quote was approved, it would book the job ‘promptly’. Operatives then attended on 16 August 2023 to provide a quote for the works.
  5. In its October 2023 final response letter, the landlord stated that it would only carry out emergency repairs on the resident’s property, referencing the pre-action protocol and accompanying letter of claim it had received from the resident’s solicitor. However, there is no evidence that the letter of claim had restricted the landlord from progressing the work, as was evidenced in an internal email sent to this service. The landlord’s refusal to progress the required roof works at this stage further delayed it carrying out an effective repair to the roof, 10 months after the resident’s report of December 2022. 
  6. The single joint expert inspected and published their report on 6 November 2023. The report suggested that the landlord organise the required works to commence within 28 days and complete the work within a further 14 days. However, work did not take place at that time, and there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the reason for the additional delay, which was inappropriate.
  7. It was also inappropriate that the delays continued into 2024 without explanation and the landlord made no further progress with the works until the ceiling in the children’s bedroom collapsed in January 2024, more than a year after the resident’s report of the roof leak in December 2022.   
  8. Overall, the landlord’s operatives visited in January, July and November 2023 and referred to the leak as ‘ongoing’, ‘active’ or ‘urgent’. They all reported that remedial work to the roof was necessary. It should not have taken the landlord over a year, from December 2022 to January 2024, and the ceiling to collapse before the landlord took appropriate action to repair the roof. This was a failing by the landlord and was not appropriate.
  9. The resident reported living in a house she believed was not fit for human habitation. She had raised concerns that her daughter became unwell as a result of the damp and mould and was hesitant to go to her room when it rained. The resident said she felt that the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously, which also damaged her confidence in the landlord carrying out an effective and long-lasting repair. The resident’s distress over the leaks in the property was further compounded by the time and effort expended chasing the landlord for information over a protracted period. This was not appropriate and amounted to maladministration.
  10. To put it right, an order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident. It is not clear whether the leaks in the property have returned, and as such a further order has been made below for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the property and for any recommended works to be completed promptly.
  11. In terms of compensation to the resident, it is recognised that the landlord paid her £1,100, which was reimbursement for the costs the resident had incurred during her stay at the hotel. The amount included the cost of food for her and her 2 children, as well as parking costs and Wi-Fi. However, this amount did not include an element of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed repair or during her stay at the hotel. As such, this investigation calculated the amount of compensation to put things right to the resident as follows:

a.     £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof, damp and mould.

b.     In recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her home, this service calculated an additional compensation based on 15% of the average monthly rent of £600 paid by the resident. From December 2022 until February 2024, when the repair was completed – total amount £1,260.

  1. On 15 July 2024, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in relation to case 202313346. We have ordered the landlord to complete a management review concerning its approach to damp and mould, including how it identifies the risk to the household in the initial inspection. It is also recognised that since the resident’s complaint, the landlord introduced a specific policy about damp and mould, which it self-assesses against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould. For these reasons, it was not necessary to make further learning orders to the landlord with respect to the leaks, damp and mould.

 

 

The resident’s reports of rodent infestation

  1. The landlord’s guidance on dealing with pests says that residents must take reasonable steps to deal with mice. It explained this meant keeping their homes clean and disposing of rubbish properly. The guidance said the landlord would block holes and repair any damage when the property had been treated for pests by the resident.
  2. According to the evidence, the resident emailed the landlord about the mice infestation on 8 August 2023. She said that she had bought baits and poison, but these had not helped. She emailed again on 9 August and 11 August 2023 and advised that mice had eaten the bread she had bought to feed her daughter, even when stored in the cupboard. She said it was “unhygienic to find mice droppings on the kitchen counter constantly”.
  3. On 22 September 2023, the landlord authorised a 3-step pest control treatment to the resident’s property. The landlord acted appropriately here and in accordance with its pest control policy.
  4. Operatives attended the property on 26 September 2023, baited all rooms, removed 2 mice from the storage cupboard, and counted 9 ingress points. They said that in time for their next visit on 10 October 2023, the landlord would need to remove 4 kitchen units and the bath panel so that operatives could seal the ingress points behind. Operatives returned on 10 October 2023 and reported that the kitchen units and the bath panel had not been removed. As such, they were unable to conduct proofing work. They collected the bait boxes and cancelled the third treatment that had been booked. The landlord’s failure to coordinate its contractors undermined its efforts to resolve the infestation and was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord’s records show operatives attended the property to remove the bath panel on 11 October 2023 but reportedly could not gain access. There is no evidence that the landlord scheduled this appointment with the resident or arranged for its operative to return and remove the panel when the resident was available. There is also no evidence that it rebooked the third pest control treatment that had already been cancelled the day before. The landlord was not resolution-focused here.
  6. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, landlords have an obligation to repair and keep in repair the structure of the property. Therefore, the landlord was liable to repair and seal all ingress points, as documented in the September 2023 pest control report. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow the advice of its pest control specialist, remove the kitchen units, and seal all ingress points. The landlord’s pest control policy also puts emphasis on sealing ingress points. The failure to do so was a failure to comply with its repairing obligations, was not in accordance with its pest control policy, and amounted to maladministration.
  7. Evidently, the infestation caused significant distress to the resident. She reported the mice infestation had become ‘out of hand’ and ‘unbearable’. She reported a lack of sleep due to hearing mice in the bedroom and being woken up to the unpleasant sight of mice dropping over the kitchen counter. She said the landlord left her living in a rodent-infested property and was unsure “how much more of this” she could endure.
  8. The landlord did not seal the ingress points before January 2024, and it is not clear whether it has done so since. It is also not clear whether there have been recent reports of infestation by the resident.
  9. An order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if the problem still exists. If it does, the landlord has been ordered to arrange for its pest control team to inspect the property again and share the resulting report with the resident. It must then carry out all the recommendations in the report within the time frame recommended by its pest control operatives.
  10. A further order has been made below for the landlord to compensate the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest infestation.
  11. Finally, another order has been made below for the landlord to learn from the outcome.

The resident’s reports of repeated repairs to the communal door

  1. The landlord’s repairing obligation (paragraph 22 of this report) includes the communal door of a property. Landlords are obliged to carry out repairs within a reasonable time frame.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Information and Knowledge Management says residents’ vulnerabilities should be considered in the landlord’s decision-making process. It says that reasonable adjustments may need to be made to actively prevent harm or distress.
  3. The resident raised the repair to the communal front door on 14 December 2022. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had completed the repair on 11 January 2023. This service could not find evidence to support this. According to the evidence, the repair was completed on 29 January 2023. Either way, if the landlord repaired the door on 11 January 2023, it was not effective, as the resident reported ongoing issues with the door on 20 January 2023, 24 January 2023 and 25 January 2023.
  4. The repair was subsequently completed on 29 January 2023. It was not appropriate that it took 6 weeks to repair the door’s latch, and this amounts to a service failure.
  5. When taking into account that the resident was moved to the property in 2019 due to domestic violence. She reported to the landlord it was ‘unsettling’ that she was not able to lock the communal door from inside. She said her neighbour’s carer would sometimes lock the communal door from outside, leaving her and her children locked in; the extent of the impact on the resident as a result of her background was evident. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had regard to the resident’s circumstances and the inevitable distress she had gone through. This was not appropriate. 
  6. On 18 July 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been away for a family funeral. On her return, she discovered a break-in attempt on the property, which caused damage to the communal front door. She said she was particularly concerned as she had an indication from her ex-partner’s family that he knew her whereabouts. She reported the incident to the police and gave the landlord the CAD number. She said the history with her ex-partner had been ‘well documented’, and in her opinion, the landlord had not considered this. The landlord’s records show that the lock was replaced around September 2023. However, in October 2023, the lock broke again. This was repaired in January 2024, along with the roof work.
  7. The landlord’s website says that in domestic violence cases, it would actively prevent harm or distress and help to ensure residents are secure in their homes, feel safe and can stay safe. The landlord evidently failed to prioritise the repair of the communal front door, which caused the resident anxiety and significant distress, particularly after the break-in attempt. In not carrying out the repair according to the urgency of the situation, the landlord directly made the resident feel unsafe and insecure. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during the repair process, nor the impact of its inactions on the resident. The landlord acted inappropriately here which amounted to maladministration.
  8. Further orders have been made below for the landlord to put this right and to learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it would respond within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 18 July 2023. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded 21 working days later, on 15 August 2023. This was inappropriate.
  3. The resident raised the issue of a mice infestation separately on 8 August 2023 whilst chasing a response to her complaint. However, the landlord only responded to the pest infestation in its stage 2 response 46 working days later, which was inappropriate. The absence of a stage 1 investigation also removed an opportunity for the resident to respond and escalate the issue if required and for the landlord to further review its handling of the pest infestation issue.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response had an incorrect date, which was inappropriate. This investigation assumed the date should have been 9 October 2023, and on that basis, the landlord’s stage 2 response took 40 working days against a target of 20 working days, which was also inappropriate.
  5. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, orders have been made below for the landlord to put it right to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord, in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord, in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repeated repairs to the communal door.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write the resident an apology letter for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly £2,860, comprising of:

a.     £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof, damp and mould.

b.     £1260 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her home from December 2022 until February 2024.

c.      £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation.

d.     £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repeated repairs to the communal door.

e.     £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord must take the following actions in respect of the leaks:

a.     Within 4 weeks, instruct a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the property for leaks and report back in writing. A copy must be sent to the resident.

b.     Within a further 4 weeks, the landlord must complete all the recommendations of the surveyor’s report in full. Evidence must be sent to this service.

c.      The landlord must commit to inspect the property again in 6 months to ensure the property is free from leaks, damp and mould.

  1. The landlord must take the following actions in respect of rodent infestation:

a.     Within 4 weeks, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm if the infestation persists.

b.     If it does, it must instruct its pest control operatives to inspect the property within a further 2 weeks and to provide the necessary works in writing. The landlord should then create an action plan accordingly with steps and times to be adhered to.

c.      It must complete the action plan within the times specified by its pest control operatives. A copy of the pest control report and its action plan must be sent to this service and the resident within 6 weeks from the date of this report.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman
    Scheme, the landlord must conduct a case review. A copy of the review must be sent to this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report. The review must include (at the minimum):

a.     The measures it would need to take to ensure it only sends operatives to redecorate damage caused by water ingress once the source of the ingress has been identified and repaired.

b.     How it would identify and prioritise repairs in cases where a resident may be disproportionately affected by a delay due to a particular characteristic or a vulnerability.