Southampton City Council (202419696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419696

Southampton City Council

28 March 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 reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 3-bed semi-detached house.
The evidence shows the resident first reported damp and mould in March 2015. In February 2018 she contacted her MP who asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns. The MP contacted the landlord again in December 2021 and February 2022 as the resident continued to experience damp and mould.
On 8 January 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. Her home had been “unsafe for many years” due to “persistent mould”.
2. She believed there was an underlying cause which the landlord had not addressed.
3. It had told her the property needed cladding but did not install any.
4. Rainwater had “destroyed” her dining room flooring.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It said:
1. It had inspected the property on 22 February 2024. It identified that it needed to install insulation to the dining room wall.
2. Its contractor had carried out a survey on 28 March 2024. It would be in touch to arrange a suitable start date for the work.
3. There were “no current plans to carry out external cladding”.
4. It upheld the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 May 2024. She said:
1. The stage 1 response only addressed issues in the dining room. This was the “least problematic room”.
2. Every other room had more severe damp and mould. She had reported this “repeatedly”.
3. The contractor had said the water coming through the dining room floor was caused by condensation in the walls. She was not convinced this was the only issue but accepted this needed to be addressed.
4. The landlord previously told her external cladding was needed. She wanted to know why it did not plan to do this work.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2024. It said:
1. The issues reported by the resident and its reoccurrence after it had completed works did suggest an underlying issue.
2. It had carried out several inspections which identified issues which it had “attended to as they [arose]”.
3. Sometime before 2015 its surveyor had said the property would benefit from external cladding. This view “seem[ed] to have been reviewed and a decision made not to clad the house”.
4. It upheld the complaint. While it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and carried out several works, it had not resolved the issues.
5. It would carry out a full survey of the property on 19 June 2024 then produce an action plan based on the findings.
The resident remained dissatisfied as she said she continued to experience damp and mould and the landlord was not responding to her requests for updates. She escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman and the case became one we could consider in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been reporting damp and mould to the landlord since March 2015. We acknowledge that the resident did not make a formal complaint about the issue until January 2024. She did however raise the issue with her MP who escalated the matter with the landlord several times between February 2018 and February 2022.
We must consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The issues within the MP enquiries between 2018 and 2022 are so closely related to the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint process, that the landlord should reasonably have widened the scope of its investigation when responding to the resident’s complaint. Therefore, given the circumstances we have exercised our discretion to investigate the landlord’s handling of matters from 2018 onwards.

Record keeping

It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint.
In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We specifically requested any inspection or survey reports and details of all repairs completed.
During our investigations we have found that the landlord has not provided reports for several surveys and inspections. It is also unclear from the repair logs provided whether it completed some of the repairs raised.
It is not clear whether the landlord failed to keep adequate records of the above or if it failed to provide the records to the Ombudsman. We therefore recommend that the landlord ensure that it keeps such records and provides them to the Ombudsman for the purposes of our investigations.
The landlord’s failure to provide the required information in this case has impeded our investigation into its handling of the substantive issues of complaint. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.

In February 2018 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. They said the resident had reported damp and mould “many” times but the issue was ongoing. The MP said the landlord had told the resident external cladding was needed but it had not installed this.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord acted following the MP enquiry. This was unreasonable.
In May 2018 the resident reported that her dining room flooring was “lifting” due to damp. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. It found that the dining room wall was damp. It said this was due to condensation absorbing into the walls, forming inside the void, and “ponding” at the base of the walls. It raised works to:
1. Refix loose roof tiles.
2. Clear out the gutters.
3. Apply protective solution to the concrete slab at the base of the building.
4. Check the loft insulation.
5. Level the dining room floor and check the damp proof course.
6. Replace failed double-glazing units in the bedrooms and landing.
7. Replace the kitchen extractor fan.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to repairs within the following timeframes:
1. Urgent repairs – within 2 days.
2. Priority repairs – within 10 days.
3. Standard repairs – within 25 days.
4. Planned major works – within 60 days.
The landlord completed most of the above works by the end of July 2018. While this exceeded its policy timeframe of 25 days, given the scope of work required we do not consider that this was unreasonable.
The landlord replaced the blown double-glazing units in September 2018. This exceeded the landlord’s timeframe for both standard and planned repairs. As we have not seen any reason for such a delay, there is nothing to suggest that this was unavoidable. We therefore consider that the landlord’s handling of this was unreasonable.
In October 2018 the repair log shows the landlord attempted to inspect the mould but the resident did not provide access. The landlord’s repairs guidance states that it will make appointments for a mutually convenient time. It is not clear from the records whether it agreed an appointment with the resident.
The landlord’s records do not include communication with the resident about appointments. It is not clear whether the landlord does not keep records of such communications or if it has not provided them to us. Such records would help the landlord to demonstrate that it has reasonably communicated with resident’s and attempted to fulfil its repair obligations.
The resident contacted the landlord in November 2018 to report mould in 2 of the bedrooms. She said this was a reoccurring problem. The landlord attended 9 days later to inspect the mould and begin further mould treatment. This was in line with its policy timeframes for urgent repairs and was therefore reasonable.
The resident reported mould again in October 2019. The landlord carried out mould treatments to the hallway, landing and bedrooms. It completed the treatments on 10 December 2019. As mould treatment requires repeated visits, this was reasonable.
In January 2020 the resident reported that water was coming up through the flooring in her dining room and hallway.
Following the resident’s report the landlord inspected the property and raised repairs to the guttering and to refix loose roof tiles. We have not been provided with a report of the inspection’s findings.
The records show the landlord completed the roof and guttering repairs on 28 February 2020. This was within the timeframe outlined in its policy.
In November 2020 the resident reported further water ingress from the roof which was causing damage to the loft and bedrooms. The landlord booked an inspection of the roof for 12 February 2021. It is not clear why there was a delay of 3 months between the resident’s report and the booked appointment. We have not seen anything which suggests that this was unavoidable either.
The records show the landlord could not gain access to complete the inspection on 12 February 2021. Later repair records show this was because a lift or scaffolding tower was required to reach the roof. We would have expected that the landlord would have been able to foresee this need. Its lack of forethought caused further avoidable delays.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the roof in April 2021. Records show it filled in some holes in the external brickwork and cleared the gulleys and downpipes. It said it would return to brick up the air vents when fledgling birds had left. While this was reasonable, we have not seen evidence that it did so. It is not clear whether it failed to complete the work or if there was an issue with its record keeping. Either way, the landlord should have clearly documented its actions. That it did not was a failing.
In August 2021 the resident reported mould “throughout the property”. The landlord attended and carried out a mould treatment. It noted that a mould inspection was required. We have not seen evidence that it carried out an inspection until January 2023. This was nearly 18 months later.
In December 2021 the resident’s MP again contacted the landlord and said they were concerned about ongoing issues with damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3 days after the MP’s contact the landlord raised an order to carry out mould treatments throughout the resident’s property. It completed these between 6 January 2022 and 5 April 2022. It was positive that the landlord acted following the MP’s reports. We do not however consider that the resident should have had to contact her MP to encourage the landlord to carry out works it was obliged to do.
In January 2022 the resident again reported water coming up through the flooring in her dining room and hallway. Records show the landlord attended to inspect the issue 2 weeks later but that the resident did not provide access. It is again unclear from the records whether it had booked an appointment with the resident. Given the nature of the report, we would consider the inspection to be urgent. It should therefore have been arranged within 2 days of the resident’s report in line with the landlord’s policy.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any further investigations or works in the following year. We acknowledge that the records show the resident failed to provide access in January 2022. Given the ongoing and serious nature of the reported issues however, we would expect it to have been more persistent in its attempts to resolve them.
In January 2023 the resident again reported mould in the property and water coming up through the dining room flooring. The records indicate that the landlord carried out inspections on 31 January 2023 and 23 March 2023. The landlord has not provided us with reports or notes of the findings from either inspection.
We would reasonably expect the landlord to record the outcome of such inspections and provide them to us for the purposes of our investigation. As it has not done so we cannot confirm that its subsequent actions were reasonable.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. It is not clear whether it arranged this in response to a report from the resident. It wrote to the resident 2 weeks later outlining its findings. It said:
1. It would:

i. Unblock the rear downpipe and reconnect it to the drainage system.

ii. Cut away the paving slabs on the steps from the walls of the property.

iii. Remove the flooring in the dining room to check the damp proof course.

iv. Consider relaying the dining room flooring if it was damp.

v. Replace the bathroom window with one with an in-built extractor fan.

vi. Consider renewing the internal insulation in the bedrooms if this was saturated.

vii. Check the kitchen extractor fan.

It asked the resident to:

i. Spray affected areas with an anti-mould and mildew spray every month.

ii. Reduce clothes drying inside.

iii. Keep windows closed if it was wet outside.

iv. Wipe moisture from her windows daily.

v. Consider using more heating.

vi. Use her extractor fans.

vii. “acquire” a dehumidifier.

It was not unreasonable of the landlord to provide the resident with information about reducing condensation in the property. It also identified several investigations that it would take to try and resolve the damp and mould. We do not therefore consider that the landlord was seeking to place blame on the resident or avoid taking responsibility for resolving the issue.
The records show that the landlord raised an order for a contractor to flush the gutters and downpipe in May 2023. The target date for the work was July 2023 but the repair log shows the work as incomplete. It is not clear if this is a further record keeping issue or if it did not complete the work. Either way, this was a failing.
The landlord carried out a 3-stage mould wash to the kitchen, bathroom, living room, dining room, hallway, and bedrooms starting in August 2023. It is not clear why it took the landlord 3 months to start this work. This was not in accordance with the timeframes in the landlord’s policy and was an unreasonable delay.
In November 2023 the landlord installed a new window in the bathroom with a built-in extractor fan. It is not clear why it took the landlord 5 months to complete this work. This far exceeds the timeframes in its policy and was therefore a failing.
In response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord carried out a further inspection of the property in February 2024. We have not seen any records relating to this inspection. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said the survey had found that it needed to insulate the dining room wall. It said it would be in touch to arrange the work.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord installed insulation to the dining room wall. That the landlord has not demonstrated that it did as it said it would do is a further failing. This mismanaged the resident’s expectations causing her avoidable disappointment.
In her stage 2 complaint the resident asked why the landlord had decided not to externally clad the property. The landlord accepted in its final complaint response that it had told her prior to 2015 that the property would benefit from exterior cladding. However, it said “this view [seemed] to have been reviewed and a decision made not to clad the house”. We do not consider that this was a reasonable response.
The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair the structure and exterior of the property. This does not extend to making improvements. Installing cladding is likely to be considered an improvement rather than a repair.
We also acknowledge that the landlord will be subject to budgetary constraints. Social landlords are expected to manage their budgets responsibly and the cost of cladding works may have been prohibitive.
However, the landlord should have been able to provide a clear explanation for its change in position. That it could not was a failing.
In June 2024, the landlord carried out another damp survey. It wrote to the resident on 21 August 2024 and said:
1. It recommended the following works:

i. Install external cladding to the living room, dining room, hallway, staircase, and bedrooms.

ii. Install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system.

iii. Inspect the heating system.

iv. Cut back vegetation from the external wall to check for sources of water ingress.

v. Increase the loft insulation to 300mm.

vi. Replace the windows via the planned replacement programme.

Some of these works were subject to budget availability.
It again provided advice regarding heating and ventilation.

The landlord upgraded the loft insulation in July 2024. This was within the timeframes outlined in its repairs policy.
In October 2024 the landlord replaced the windows and external doors as part of its planned works programme. In the same month it installed a PIV system. Considering the extent and cost of these works, we consider this was not an unreasonable timeframe.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord cut back the vegetation from the external wall or installed external cladding. We acknowledge that the landlord stipulated that the identified works were subject to budget availability. We would however have expected it to demonstrate that it had considered the work and kept the resident updated regarding its decision. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
The records show the resident made further reports of damp and mould in December 2024. She also continues to report water coming through her dining room floor.
The landlord carried out at least 8 surveys along with several more inspections of the mould issue over a 6-year period. We accept that in some circumstances the cause of a repair issue will not be clear and that a landlord will need to carry out repeated investigations to identify the cause. This is often the case where there is water ingress.
We do not however consider that it was reasonable that the resident continued to experience water ingress, damp, and mould for such a prolonged period. The issue evidently caused her distress and inconvenience.
As the landlord was unable to identify the source of the issue, we would have expected it to engage an independent specialist to carry out investigations. That it does not appear to have considered this possibility was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue sooner.
Overall, while the landlord has carried out several inspections and completed works in an attempt to resolve the issues, the resident continues to report water ingress, damp, and mould. It has therefore failed to provide a lasting and effective repair in line with its obligations. As a result, the resident has experienced detriment over a prolonged period. We have therefore found maladministration in its handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.

Complaint handling.

It took the landlord 89 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This far exceeds the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
The Code recognises that landlords may not have completed all actions by the time it issues its complaint response. In such cases the landlord should provide details of any outstanding actions and monitor to ensure it completes the work and keeps the resident updated.
In this case the stage 1 response stated that landlord would install insulation to the dining room wall. It did not provide a date for this work. We have not seen evidence that it did as it said it would do, monitored the issue, or kept the resident updated. This was a failing.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report that her dining room flooring had been “destroyed”.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance Issues’, states landlords should consider whether there is evidence that it was at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s belongings. It states that if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy. This is because claims made on a policy may affect the resident’s future premium and/or require them to pay an excess.
In this case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer. That it did not was a failing.
While the landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint it failed to explain why or describe its service failures. The Code states that, in its decision letter, the landlord must outline its decision and the reasons for that decision. As it did not outline its failings, it cannot demonstrate that it has learned from its mistakes in line with our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord also failed to offer any apology or financial redress for its failings. The purpose of the complaints process is to put things right. If it cannot put the resident back in the position they were in before the service failure, it should offer proportionate compensation. The landlord did not do so in this case and therefore failed to put things right.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy. It also addressed each of the issues raised by the resident. This was positive.
The landlord’s stage 2 response again upheld the resident’s complaint. This time it acknowledged that it had not resolved the damp and mould issues. It did not however acknowledge the full extent of its failings. The landlord did not acknowledge that the resident had been reporting the issues regularly since at least 2018. It therefore failed to address the full detriment experienced by the resident.
While the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2, it again failed to offer any financial redress. Considering the length of time the resident had experienced reduced enjoyment of the property along with distress and inconvenience, the landlord should have offered her proportionate compensation. That it did not was inappropriate.
During the period of the complaint the resident paid approximately £475 per month in rent. We consider that, in the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate that the landlord pay compensation in recognition of the time that the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced due to its handling of her repair issues. We consider the period of the landlord’s maladministration to have started in November 2020.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £2,470 for reduced enjoyment of the property. We have calculated this as approximately 10% of the total rent for 52 months. It is important to note that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
Overall, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It did not acknowledge the full extent of its service failures and failed to put the issue right or offer the resident any redress. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,670 which comprises:

i. £2,470 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.

ii. £200 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling.

Provide the resident with a full explanation of why it has not followed its surveyor’s recommendation to install external cladding.
Carry out a full inspection of the property with a view to determining the cause of the water ingress, damp, and mould. Given the complex and recurrent nature of the issue and as several previous inspections have failed to identify the cause of the issues, the landlord should consider instructing an independent specialist to complete the survey.
Within 2 weeks of receipt of the survey report, the landlord to draw up an action plan based on the report’s recommendations. The landlord must provide the resident with a copy of the action plan and agree an arrangement for regular updates.
Provide the resident with details of how to make a claim on its insurance for damage to her dining room flooring.