Southern Housing (202312602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312602

Southern Housing

29 January 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 resident’s reports of:
1. Water overflowing from the building’s roof.
2. Poor quality repairs completed in communal areas.
3. Damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has held the lease for the property since March 2012, the landlord is a housing association. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities, however the resident told the landlord their child has asthma.
The property is a three-bedroom flat within a wider block of flats. The landlord is responsible for the communal areas of the block.
On 10 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that water was overflowing from the roof and running down the exterior walls of the block. The resident also expressed concern about the quality of painting and decorating which had recently been completed in the communal area.
On 11 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, in this complaint the resident said:
1. They were disappointed with the landlord’s communication.
2. Water had been overflowing from the roof and rolling down external walls. They were concerned this could be causing damp issues within their property.
3. Recent painting and decorating completed in the communal hallway was of poor quality.
4. There were damaged tiles in the communal areas.
On 9 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage one response, which said:
1. A contractor had inspected the roof and confirmed it had been properly installed.
2. During the inspection it was identified that pigeon debris and foliage was blocking the drains, and this was causing water to pool and cascade from the roof. The landlord said it was working with a pest control company to install measures to prevent pigeons from using the roof.
3. The landlord had instructed a contractor to repaint the communal hallway and remove paint and tape residue from communal windows.
4. Work had been conducted to strip paint from the tiles in the communal hallway.
5. The landlord would conduct a survey of the basement to see if this was contributing to mould in the resident’s property.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said they had realised that the resident had contacted the landlord on 10 October 2022 and 18 October 2022, and it had not responded to the resident. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 for its failure to respond to them on these occasions.
On 20 April 2023 the resident escalated their complaint. The resident said they were unhappy with the stage one response for the following reasons:
1. The issues with the roof had not been resolved.
2. The landlord had not supplied them with reports from contractors.
3. They felt contractors had damaged the communal entrance.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. A contractor had inspected the roof and confirmed it had been properly installed. It said if the resident noticed any further issues with the roof, they should report this as a repair request with the landlord.
2. The resident had received a damp report on 28 April 2023, and the landlord apologised for the time it had taken for the report to be shared with them. The landlord said the report showed the damp and mould was not caused by any structural defects, and as such it was not responsible for treating the damp and mould.
3. The contractor which the landlord had previously instructed to complete painting and decorating work in the communal areas had been unresponsive. The landlord had instructed a second contractor to conduct the work due to the lack of communication from the initial contractor. The target date for the repairs to be completed was 30 June 2023.
4. The landlord offered the resident an additional £25 in compensation as a gesture of good will.
On 3 June 2023 the resident contacted this service as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to their complaint. The resident felt the landlord should complete its repairs to a satisfactory standard and that its communication about the repair had been poor.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the roof

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. Under this policy the landlord committed to dealing with repairs either on an emergency basis, or via an appointment-based system for matters not considered to be an emergency. The policy did not outline a timescale in which the landlord will aim to complete emergency or non-emergency repairs. The landlord has since updated this policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2022 and 18 October 2022 to report that water was overflowing from the roof of the building. The landlord did not respond to these concerns. On 21 October 2022 the landlord logged the matter as a repair. The landlord later apologised to the resident for its failure to respond to them. This was appropriate considering the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident likely caused them distress.
On 15 November 2022 the company which had installed the roof conducted an inspection. The report concluded that the roof had been correctly installed. The company advised the landlord there was evidence of pigeons nesting on the roof, and drainage areas had been blocked by pigeon waste and foliage. They suggested the landlord should consider utilising falconry services, clean the drains and that it could change the guttering to have higher edges to prevent water overflow from the roof.
The landlord’s action in requesting the roofing company conduct an inspection was appropriate as it ruled out any structural issues with the installed roof. The landlord arranged for this inspection to occur in a timely manner which was appropriate. However, the landlord appeared not to consider that the drains would likely become blocked again from foliage and other debris, and that it should take steps to clean the drains at regular intervals. After this inspection the landlord did not take steps to install new guttering as the roofing company had suggested.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the advice and recommendations of a knowledgeable contractor.
In December 2022 a pest control company conducted an inspection of the roof. The Landlord’s decision to instruct a pest control company was appropriate and reasonable considering the landlord had been informed pigeons were contributing to the drains becoming blocked.
During its inspection the pest control company installed netting, bird free gel and wire balloons to prevent birds from nesting on the roof, and to prevent bird debris from blocking the drains. A report from this inspection noted water was pooling on the roof, and there were drains which the company was not able to unblock.
The landlord arranged for the pest control company to conduct further work on the roof to unblock the remaining drains on 31 January 2023. The landlord updated the resident about this work on 26 January 2023, which was appropriate. The landlord’s actions showed it was taking steps to try and resolve the water overflow issues.
It appears the landlord took an approach where it decided to implement the suggested repairs sequentially to see if an individual action would rectify the issue. This approach was appropriate, so long as the landlord continued to take steps to rectify the issue if its previous actions were ineffective.
On 20 April 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to a stage 2 complaint as they were concerned that the repairs to the roof had not been completed as water was still overflowing from the roof.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord told the resident the repairs to the roof were complete. On 4 July 2023 the landlord told the resident it could not guarantee there would no longer be water overflowing from the roof. It said it would be focusing on dealing with any future blockages and it expected water overflow to occur during periods of significant rain. This response was inappropriate, as it showed the landlord had not fully resolved the resident’s complained of issue.
Considering the landlord had said it anticipated water overflow would continue, it is the Ombudsman’s assessment that the repair had not been adequately completed. During inspections to the roof the pest control company and the roofing company had suggested the landlord install higher kickstands/edging to the roof and guttering, at the time the landlord had not implemented this work. It was inappropriate for the landlord to tell the resident the repair was complete when it had not implemented recommendations made following inspections.
On 4 August 2023 the roofing company conducted an additional inspection of the roof. In its report the company noted debris was blocking the drains. The roofing company suggested the landlord should conduct maintenance work to the drains and gutters every 3 to 6 months to prevent blockages from occurring. This Service has asked the landlord if it implemented this recommendation, the landlord failed to respond to this question.
On 24 October 2023 a surveyor inspected the roof and produced a report which said:
1. The gutters and drains of the property were prone to blockages.
2. The outer edge of the roof had a low upstand.
3. Water was pooling in the drains, and due to the low upstands, it was likely water would overflow during high rainfall or in windy conditions.
4. They suggested the landlord should install increased edge kerbs to the roof, guttering and drains.
5. They suggested gutters and drainage pipes should be cleaned regularly.
The surveyors report clearly showed that the repairs conducted by the landlord had not been adequate as it had not ensured the gutters and drains were regularly cleaned, and it had not increased the edge kerbs. This was inappropriate considering taking such action could have rectified the issue and satisfied the resident’s complaint.
This Service has asked the landlord on more than one occasion to outline what repairs it has completed to the roof, and to confirm if it has implemented any recommendations from surveyors who assessed the roof. The landlord has not provided this evidence. The resident has told this Service the landlord has conducted some repairs to the roof. They said the landlord increased the height of upstands and guttering at the rear of the block, but the landlord had not completed this work at the front of the building.
The resident has told this Service they are tired of the lack of communication from the landlord, and the requirement to chase the landlord repeatedly. It appears the resident feels the landlord has acted dismissively when they have raised concerns. The resident has said this has affected their ability to enjoy their own home.
This Service finds maladministration on behalf of the landlord after considering:
1. The time in which the repair has been outstanding.
2. The landlord’s complaint responses indicate it did not recognise or learn from its own failures.
3. The landlord did not apologise to the resident or offer any redress relating to the roof repairs.
4. The landlord did not regularly communicate with the resident and update them on the progress of repairs.
5. The landlord told the resident the repair was completed when it was not.
6. The landlord appears to have not fully implemented the recommendations of surveyors and experts.
An order of £450 compensation has been made. This is in-line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient communication and its timeliness in completing the repair. It also reflects the lack of an apology or any offer of compensation from the landlord.

Repairs to the communal areas

The landlord’s repairs policy is summarised at paragraph 12 of this report.
On 10 October 2022 the resident said painting and decorating which a contractor had completed in the communal hallways was of poor quality. The resident also asked to see quotes the landlord had received from the company who repainted the communal areas. The resident said they were concerned about paying for the repainting via their service charge, due to the quality of the contractor’s work.
Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides the resident with the right to inspect supporting documents which have been used to calculate a service charge payment. The landlord did not provide the resident with the requested documentation, which was inappropriate.
In subsequent communication with the landlord the resident said:
1. The contractor had used two different paint colours, and they had told the resident they did this as they did not have enough paint to complete the whole room.
2. The contractor had gotten paint on glass panes and on tiles.
3. The painting was uneven.
4. The contractor had damaged windowpanes where they had taped wet paint warning signs.
5. Tiles by the lift were damaged.
In its stage one response the landlord said it would contact the contractor and ensure they repainted the hallway and cleaned the tape residue. The landlord said a surveyor would oversee this work and ensure it was conducted to a high standard. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure there was oversight for this repair considering the previous quality of the contractor’s work.
On 25 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord about the communal areas and said the paintwork was chipping and getting worse. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated around its progress in completing these repairs, but this Service holds no evidence to suggest this occurred.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the repairs to the tiles and paintwork had not been completed. The landlord explained that its contractor was not responding to its communications, and as such it would be instructing a second contractor to complete the work. The landlord said its target date to complete the communal repairs was 30 June 2023.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the original contractor re-painted the communal areas, and it did not hire a second contractor to complete this work. This appears to be at odds with the content of the landlord’s stage two response which said the contractor had been ignoring the landlord’s communications. This service asked the landlord to provide evidence of the contractor not responding to its requests, as detailed in its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to provide such documents.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said its target date for completing this work was 30 June 2023. The landlord has said the re-painting occurred in September 2023, this was unreasonable considering the landlord had committed to completing the work by 30 June 2023. Considering the contents of its stage 2 response, the landlord should have told the resident its suggested timescale was no longer achievable. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not update the resident of this development and provide them with an updated time estimate.
The resident has told this Service the quality of the re-painting was also poor, and this has led the resident to have a lack of faith in the ability of their landlord. Considering the poor quality of the initial paintwork the landlord should have considered instructing a different contractor or ensured that the contractor had oversight and was aware of the landlord’s expectations about the quality of work it required.
The resident has told this Service the landlord told them it would not be replacing the tiles on the ground floor communal area. The landlord told the resident it had surveyed residents of the building, and the result of this survey was that residents wished for the tiles to remain. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of this survey.
The resident has told this Service they asked the landlord to attend the property in person so they can show the landlord the quality of the communal repairs. The resident said such a meeting has not occurred.
The resident’s concerns around the communal painting and decorating were largely an aesthetic issue, and the issue did not relate specifically to the resident’s property as the issue was isolated to a communal area of the building. As such the detriment the resident experienced relating to the repairs was reduced. However, the time the resident had taken to contact the landlord about the repairs would have caused them stress and inconvenience, and the landlord did not acknowledge this within its complaint responses.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration on behalf of the landlord after considering:
1. The landlord did not sufficiently oversee the initial work conducted by its contractor.
2. The landlord did not fulfil its obligations to facilitate the viewing of documents under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
3. The repair was outstanding for an unreasonable length of time.
4. The landlord’s stage two response was inaccurate, and committed to hiring a new contractor, which it did not do.
5. The landlord did not meet the timescales it outlined within its stage 2 response.
6. The time and effort taken by the resident to chase the repairs with the landlord.
In light of the finding of maladministration by the Ombudsman, an order of £200 redress has been made. Compensation of £200 is in-line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient communication and in the length of time the repair was outstanding.

The resident’s concerns around damp and mould

At the time the resident complained about damp and mould the landlord did not operate a specific damp and mould policy. It would have dealt with damp and mould concerns under its repairs policy. The landlord has since updated their policies to have a policy directly relating to damp and mould.
The lease agreement says the resident is responsible for the interior of the property, and the landlord is responsible for the exterior and the structural elements of the property. Under the lease the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the exterior walls of the flat, and the windowpanes.
In their complaint the resident said there was mould present in their property. The resident believed the mould was being exacerbated by water saturating the external walls due to the overflow of water from the roof. The resident said they had tried everything to combat the mould, and the mould was affecting their child who had asthma.
Under the terms of the lease, any damp and mould within the interior of the property which was not linked to the structure of the building would have been the resident’s responsibility.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord facilitated a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s home. This was appropriate, as the landlord needed to establish the cause of the damp and mould to identify whether it was responsible for any repairs. The surveyor’s damp and mould report noted the external walls of the property were not damp. It was the surveyor’s assessment that mould within the property was caused by internal factors which the resident had responsibility for. The surveyor also provided the resident with advice on how to treat mould.
The landlord provided the resident with its inspection report on 28 April 2023, which was 5 months after the inspection. There is no evidence on which we could conclude that this delay was reasonable.
In its stage one response the landlord agreed to conduct an inspection in the basement area of the building to see if this was contributing to the mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to inspect the basement, as this would assist with identifying who was responsible for treating the mould in the resident’s home.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord arranged for a contractor to assess the resident’s concerns around the damp and mould being impacted by the building’s basement. However, this appointment was not pre-arranged with the resident, and the resident was not present at the property to allow the contractor access. The landlord’s actions in this regard were inappropriate considering the landlord’s repairs policy notes any non-emergency repairs should be organised via an appointment-based system. The landlord should have ensured the resident was present at the property before formalising a date with any contractor.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord conducted a further damp and mould inspection. During this inspection the landlord found no link between the damp and mould and the exterior or structure of the property.
During this inspection the surveyor assessed whether the building’s basement could be linked to damp and mould in the property. The surveyor concluded that the basement area of the block wouldn’t affect the resident’s property, as there was a solid concrete slab between the property and the basement. The landlord had originally agreed to assess the basement in its stage one response dated 9 December 2022. It was inappropriate that it took the landlord until 28 July 2023 to complete this action.
The landlord had acted in an appropriate manner by facilitating two damp and mould surveys. This is of note when considering the resident’s concerns about damp and mould being linked to communal areas of the building, and because of their child’s health condition. However, the landlord should have been more proactive in addressing the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould, and it could have conducted further investigation of the balcony door.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred after considering:
1. The landlord facilitated two damp and mould inspections.
2. The landlord did not send the resident their damp inspection report in a reasonable timeframe.
3. The landlord did not assess if the basement was contributing to damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe.
4. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the property without confirming the resident’s availability beforehand.
In light of the finding of a service failure, an order of £100 redress has been made. Compensation of £100 is in-line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This Service has produced a Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which outlines the complaint handling standards landlords enrolled in the Scheme should meet. The Code outlines landlords are expected to handle resident’s complaints under a two-stage process. Under stage one of the process landlords should provide a response to a resident’s complaint within 10 working days of the landlord acknowledging the complaint. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request their complaint be escalated to a stage 2 complaint. Landlords are expected to provide the resident with a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet the mentioned timescales, it can request a 10 day extension from a resident.
At the time the landlord operated a complaints procedure which was not in-line with the Code. The landlord’s complaints policy outlined that a stage one response would be sent to the resident within 10 working days of a complaint being acknowledged by the landlord, this could be extended by a further 10 days if the resident agrees to an extension. If a resident was unhappy with the contents of their stage one response, they could request a stage 2 response. Under the stage 2 process a resident’s complaint would be assessed by a review panel within 30 working days. Within 10 working days of the review panel meeting, a written response outlining the panel’s findings should be sent to the resident. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be in-line with the Code.
The resident complained on 11 November 2022. On 21 November 2022, the landlord agreed a 7 day extension with the resident.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 9 December 2025, which was 15 working days after the resident had agreed to a 7 day extension. This was inappropriate as it was not in-line with its own policy. As the resident had agreed a revised timescale, the landlord should have ensured it met this timescale.
The resident escalated their complaint on 20 April 2023.The landlord s provided its stage 2 response on 1 June 2023, which was 28 working days later. This was appropriate because it was in-line with the landlord’s policy.
The detriment caused to residents by poor complaint handling is limited, but poor complaints handling can cause a resident distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not provide the resident with a stage one response within the timescales outlined in its own policy.
2. The landlord did not inform the resident, or apologise for, its stage one response being late.
In light of the finding of a service failure, an order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its poor complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of water overflowing from the roof of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns around poor quality painting and decorating in communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s actions relating to the resident’s concerns around damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £750 to the resident. The compensation previously offered of £75 can be deducted from this sum, if already paid. This figure is comprised of:
1. £450 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water overflowing from the roof of the building.
2. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of poor painting and decorating conducted in the building’s communal areas.
3. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around damp and mould.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this Service and the resident with a schedule of repairs it intends to complete to rectify the roofing issues.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide the resident with a written apology for its poor complaints handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this Service’s orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should arrange to meet with the resident in person to understand their concerns and expectations in relation to the communal repairs discussed in this report.