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

Southern Housing (202220587)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220587

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 November 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s concerns with the smoke alarm.
    3. The repairs to the property.
  2. This report has also looked at the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy started on 2 May 2016. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children. The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident. The resident has provided a medical letter which explains she has an undiagnosed neurological condition and that 1of her children is autistic.
  2. The resident’s mother called the landlord on 21 October 2022 to raise a complaint about her daughter’s property. She explained that there was mould in the property which had damaged possessions and that there were also concerns with the fire alarm, the boiler cupboard which had been removed and not refitted, missing handles on cupboards/doors, issues with lights fusing and other concerns at the property which was affecting the resident’s and her children’s health. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to acknowledge the complaint. It explained a surveyor would be sent out to inspect the mould.
  3. Following the landlord’s surveyor having attended on 29 November 2022 the landlord explained that the installation of mechanical ventilation had been suggested which the resident would need to empty regularly. The resident stated she was unable to do this due to her medical condition and also raised concerns about the additional costs of this. She declined the option of installing the ventilation. The resident also explained 4 of the property’s windows were broken and could not be opened and that she wanted to be moved from the property and had competed a medical transfer form and been given a banding of A.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. It explained a surveyor had attended the property in November 2022 and undertaken a review in February 2023. It stated it would arrange a different surveyor to attend and carry out a full survey of the property and that this could result in the resident being decanted whilst work was carried out. It added that it would also complete the remaining repairs to the property and that compensation would be assessed once the survey took place.
  5. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 22 August 2023.  It explained that the surveyor had attended on 3 July 2023 and that works were needed to the property in relation to the damp and mould for which the resident would be decanted. It offered the resident £570 compensation, which comprised £75 for the delays in its complaints handling, £450 for the inconvenience and time and trouble, £15 for failure to follow process, £15 for repeated visits and £15 for miscommunication.
  6. The resident accepted the compensation offer from the landlord. She was decanted from 21 August 2023 for initially a period of 2 weeks to allow the repairs to be completed.
  7. In referring the matter to this Service on 10 October 2023 the resident explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The resident also explained there were further concerns with the property following the decant and that she had what she believed was sewage coming up into the bath and shower and that the window in her son’s room had still not been fixed.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

  1. The landlord has confirmed in July 2024 that it has awarded her a management move and that it will make her one reasonable offer of alternative accommodation of a 2-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident and her mother have explained that they have been raising issues with the property and the damp and mould within it since 2017. Under paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider issues which have not been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, or which have not been referred to this Service within a reasonable time. As the resident did not make a complaint to the landlord until October 2022, events from 2017 do not form part of this investigation.  This report has considered the events from October 2022 onwards.
  2. The resident has raised further matters including possible sewage coming back into her bath and shower following the end of the landlord’s complaints process in August 2023. As this repair was not part of the resident’s original complaint it has not been considered as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that the landlord will maintain the structure, outside and shared areas of the home including drains, gutters, and outside pipes. The policy explains that a repair will be treated as an emergency if there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health.  It adds that it would repair or if this was not possible make safe as soon as possible, within 24 hours of being notified. Whilst the policy sets out a list of repairs which are considered as emergency, the policy does add that the list is not exhaustive. The policy adds that the landlord accepts that “some repair issues have a potentially adverse impact on a resident with a medical vulnerability or condition”. It adds that in those circumstances it would investigate the matter promptly to resolve the matter and that the “resident’s welfare, health and safety will be our primary concern”.
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Framework 2023-24 is aligned to the relevant legislation as well as the recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. The framework aims to “address damp and mould with a zero tolerance approach”. This is by implementing actions and processes which aim to reduce the likelihood of damp and mould occurring as well as speedily and effectively resolving issues when they do occur.
  3. The framework assigned a hazard level of between 1 and 4 based on the degree of damp and mould together with the action required as well as timescale. In the case of minor damp and mould which could be treated through normal day to day repairs service this was marked as hazard category 3. The action for this was intervention by the landlord within 28 working days. A hazard level of 2 with intervention within 10 working days was when damp and mould was significant but could be managed in situ with low impact to the resident. A hazard rating of 1 required immediate temporary relocation and was when the damp and mould presented an immediate health risk to the residents due to vulnerabilities, mobility issues, or support needs. The bottom hazard rating of 4 was where there was no damp and mould currently present but where similar properties had experienced it previously. In terms of this category the action needed was for a proactive quarterly review and re-assessment.
  4. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor had suggested mechanical ventilation for the resident in February 2020 following a visit to the property. Although the resident initially agreed to this, the work did not take place due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. The resident then informed the landlord she did not want it installed. The resident contacted the landlord again in October 2022 to complain about the mould as well as a number of other outstanding repairs. At this time the resident and her mother informed the landlord that as well as one of the children being autistic the resident also had a disability. The landlord’s internal notes on 3 November 2022 requested a surveyor was sent out to look at all of the issues. This appointment was scheduled by the landlord on 24 November 2022, but this was cancelled and rescheduled for 29 November 2022.
  6. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of the survey from the visit on 29 November 2022. Its internal correspondence noted that the surveyor had proposed mechanical ventilation be installed in the property and that the resident had enquired as to who would pay the additional electrical costs for the ventilation. Based on the landlord not having committed to covering the costs as well as the resident being asked to empty the ventilation which she was unable to do, she had declined the mechanical ventilation option. The surveyor had closed the case on this basis. In its stage 1 response in June 2023 the landlord had noted the surveyor had noted severe damp to the property.
  7. Although the landlord proposed the mechanical ventilation in both 2020 and again 2022, after the resident had declined the offer the landlord did not undertake any further investigation into the damp and mould at the property. The landlord’s approach was one of waiting for the resident to get back in touch if the damp and mould had gotten any worse. This approach was in contrast to this Service’s spotlight report which required that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
  8. While the mechanical ventilation would have allowed stale air to be extracted, it would not have removed the existing damp and mould in the property. This required the landlord to attend and to take further action. This was a failing by it, especially as the resident had informed the landlord that there was an issue with the windows in the property which meant they could not be opened to allow ventilation into the property. There is no evidence that the landlord considered alternative options to the mechanical ventilation, even when asked it by the housing officer who had observed firsthand the extent of the damp and mould in the resident’s property and on their personal belongings.
  9. The resident was informed by the landlord on 17 December 2022 when she called it that a surveyor had been requested to attend for the windows, mould and the repairs. However, the surveyor did not attend the property at that time, even after a joint inspection with the housing officer had been scheduled. The landlord’s notes show the surveyor did not reply to it until 10 February 2023 when they said the case had been closed after the resident had not accepted the option of mechanical ventilation being installed in November 2022.
  10. The landlord’s notes show the resident contacted it on several occasions directly and via her Housing Officer, following making the complaint in October 2022 to raise the issues of the outstanding repairs and the damp and mould. The landlord’s own internal process did not prompt an update even when a member of its staff had requested this for the resident. Apart from asking the surveyor to attend, which did not take place, there was a lack of any other update to the resident until 17 April 2023 when it informed the resident about the repairs that had been scheduled. The landlord’s approach in not providing regular updates to the resident was not appropriate.
  11. Following the stage 1 response in June 2023 the landlord made arrangements for a different surveyor to attend. The landlord’s internal notes from 19 June 2023 show it understood the need at looking at alternatives if the mechanical ventilation was not an option and that there might be a need to decant the resident. The landlord’s internal notes show that it would need to discuss clearly with the resident over the benefits and running costs of the ventilation system. The appointment for the surveyor took place on 3 July 2023. The surveyor’s report noted that the contractor’s failure to replace window handles to allow them to open had added to the condensation in the property. The surveyor also raised concerns about some of the other repairs which had been carried out by the contractor. The surveyor noted that whilst the resident had now agreed to the mechanical ventilation, that there could be “permission issues” and that it should be considered as a last resort. The surveyor had also agreed that a decant was needed in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould framework.
  12. The decant took place from 21 August 2023 and while it had been intended to only be for 2 weeks it was extended by a few days to allow for some of the repair work to dry out. The resident was provided with supermarket vouchers for the extended decant. This was reasonable from the landlord, and she was updated on the extension as soon as the landlord was made aware of it. 
  13. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to it, ensuring that their responses to this issue are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The evidence provided by the landlord does not show this was the case. In addition to it taking 6 months to tackle the damp and mould, there was also a lack of updates provided by the landlord to the resident. The delay was despite the landlord having noted there had been severe damp in the property when it attended in November 2022.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord caused unnecessary delays in addressing the damp and mould and the resident had explained on various occasions how the damp impacted her health conditions and was of concern to her and her children. She further explained in her complaint that her furniture and personal belongings had also been affected by the damp and mould. The landlord had not addressed this issue in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses, nor provided the resident with details of its insurer in order for a claim to be made for the damaged personal possessions. This was not appropriate as it was clear that the resident had informed the landlord on multiple occasions about her damaged personal possessions.
  15. The landlord has evidenced that since the end of April 2023 it has carried out works to try and resolve the issue in the property. This included decanting the resident in August to September 2023. This decant was over 10 months since the resident had originally reported the damp and mould and 9 months since the landlord had noted “severe damp” in the property. During this time the resident had explained several times her health conditions and how they were affected by breathing in mould spores, in addition to her belongings being damaged. Despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerability there was no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or took into account the resident’s individual circumstances when making a decision. This was a failing by it.
  16. The landlord at stage 2 has acknowledged some of the delays and apologised to the resident as well as offering compensation of £450 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble and £15 for not following its process. Although this award of £465 is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, the landlord’s offer did not acknowledge the resident’s health needs and her vulnerability when handling her repair. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration and the Ombudsman considers a further award of £200 to make £665 in total is appropriate for the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the smoke alarm

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is the responsibility of the resident to replace “batteries in doorbells and battery powered smoke detectors within their home”. The landlord’s responsibility included keeping “in good repair and working orders any installations we provide”. The picture of the damaged smoke alarm in the resident’s property show that it was a mains operated alarm. Therefore, the responsibility for fixing it rested with the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy explained it would treat a repair as emergency if there was an immediate risk to safety, security or health. It added it would repair or make safe within 24 hours of being notified. If a repair was a routine repair the landlord set out it would complete the repairs as quickly as possible at a time which suited the resident. No timescale for routine repairs was provided.
  3. Under HHSRS landlord have a duty to ensure that the property is free from hazards. Examples of hazards include faults or deficiencies which could cause occupants harm, and these include fire hazards such as a faulty smoke alarms for which it was responsible.
  4. The resident raised the issue of the fire alarm in the original complaint raised by her mother on 21 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the issue on the same day and explained it had raised the matter with its fire maintenance team. The landlord has not provided any evidence that its operatives attended to repair the resident’s smoke alarm at that time. The landlord’s housing officer then raised the matter again on 27 March 2023 and sent over a picture of a broken smoke alarm to the fire maintenance team. Despite this there was no evidence that the landlord attended to the matter at that time. It finally arranged an appointment following the resident having reported the matter in August 2023 following an incident with her oven which caused smoke but did not trigger the smoke alarm.
  5. The landlord has provided this Service with evidence that it had attended on 30 August 2023, having made an appointment on 15 August 2023. This was during the period the resident had been decanted. Whilst the resident has informed this Service that following returning to the property that she has had further issues with the smoke alarm the landlord states it has no record of any further issue being raised. 
  6. In its stage 1 response issued on 19 June 2023 the landlord set out that the issue had been “chased as urgent with fire and maintenance”. Despite this the landlord has been unable to provide any evidence that an appointment had been raised at that time to repair the smoke alarm. The landlord’s stage 2 response issued on 22 August 2023 did set out that an appointment had been scheduled for 30 August 2023 to address the faulty smoke alarm. This had followed on from the resident having made the landlord aware on 15 August 2023 of the smoke in her kitchen and the inactivity of the smoke alarm.
  7. In its stage 2 response whilst the landlord had made arrangements for the repair it did not offer any specific compensation related to the faulty smoke alarm. The landlord was slow to act on this serious matter. The fault with the smoke alarm caused a degree distress to the resident especially over what would happen if there was a real fire. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and it amounted to more than service failure. Instead, the Ombudsman considers the delay in resolving the issue amounts to a finding of maladministration. Further to reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £300 for this failing.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property

  1. In addition to the issues of damp and mould and the smoke alarm the resident as part of her complaint raised a number of other repairs. This included repairs to windows in the property which could not be opened, as well the radiator in the room not working, the boiler cupboard previously removed needing to be reattached, missing handles on cupboards and doors, lights fusing and there being exposed wires in the bathroom.
  2. Whilst the landlord sent a surveyor in November 2022 to inspect the property it has been unable to provide this Service with a copy of the surveyor’s report. This would have highlighted any repairs which needed repairing. Instead of providing the report the landlord has stated the surveyor had discussed the issue of the mechanical ventilation and that it had closed the case when this had been declined by the resident. Whilst the resident had opted not to have the mechanical ventilation for the damp and mould if there were outstanding repairs these should have been progressed at the time regardless. By opting to close the case this was a serious failing by the landlord. The inability to open a number of windows in the property was a failing under HHSRS as this would be considered as a hazard. 
  3. Whilst repairs to the windows, the missing door/cupboard handles and the boiler cupboard were scheduled by the landlord this was not until April 2023, 6 months after the issue had been raised. At the same time other repairs not originally raised by the resident as part of her complaint including concerns with the shower door and the bathroom flooring and ceiling were also scheduled. The resident informed the landlord when asked on 10 June 2023 by it that the windows had not been repaired and that the only issue resolved had been to her electrical switches. The work to the kitchen cupboard, the windows, and the repairs to the bathroom and shower were not completed until the resident was decanted, having been raised following a further survey undertaken in July 2023.  Following the resident returning to the property some snagging issues had been identified with the repairs works. This included the window in one bedroom still not opening This resulted in remedial work being carried out in October 2023.
  4. Overall, there was a delay in the landlord carrying out the repairs set out by the resident in her complaint. Whilst the landlord had addressed these repairs in the main in its stage 1 response this was around 8 months after the resident had made her complaint. This was a failing by the landlord. Even after the landlord had set out the outstanding repairs in the stage 1 response these had not been fully completed until after her decant, around 11 months later. This was despite the stage 2 response again clearly setting out the work which was due to take place during the decant. This was a failing by the landlord for which the impact on the resident would have been a degree of distress and inconvenience due to the lengthy delay in getting the matters resolved. Whilst the landlord made an offer of compensation of £15 for repeat visits and £15 for miscommunication in line with its compensation policy, this award is not proportionate to the landlord’s failings. The Ombudsman has made an award of £100, which replaces the landlord’s offer of £30.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It adds if this is not possible it would contact the resident and explain why it was not able to do this and when it would provide the response, which would not exceed a further 10 working days. At stage 2 following the acknowledgment of the complaint escalation the landlord will aim to reply within 20 working days. If this was not possible it would with agreement have an extension for a further 10 working days.
  2. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day it was made (21 October 2022) it sent the stage 1 response on 19 June 2023, after 163 working days. This was significantly outside the timescales in the complaints policy.
  3. The landlord has accepted that following a request for an escalation to stage 2 that there was a delay with it acknowledging the complaint. As it has not provided this Service with the escalation request, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine the length of the delay at that stage. The landlord did however issue the stage 2 response in keeping with the timescales in its complaints policy.
  4. In summary, there was a significant delay in the landlord issuing the stage 1 response as well as acknowledging the stage 2 escalation. The landlord made an offer of £75 for the delay at stage 1. This offer is in keeping for the circumstances where the Ombudsman considers there to be service failure in its response to the resident’s complaint and that there was an impact on the resident. As a result, the Ombudsman considers that reasonable redress has been offered for the failing by the landlord and that no further compensation is due.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues with the smoke alarm.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,140. From this amount the landlord can deduct the £570 which it has already paid to the resident at stage 2. This leaves a further amount of £570 to be paid by it. In terms of the total compensation of £1,140 this is made up of the following aspects:
      1. £665 for its failures in terms of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
      2. £300 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the smoke alarm.
      3. £100 for its failures in its repairs to the property.
      4. £75 for the complaints handling.
    3. Provide the resident with details of its insurer for the resident to submit a claim for her damaged possessions.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if there are any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in August 2023. This concerns the repairs which were carried out following the decant between August and September 2023.