Southern Housing Group Limited (202232714)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232714

Southern Housing Group Limited

24 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette in a low rise block of maisonettes (the block). He lives at the property with his wife and 4 children. He has lived at the property since December 2002. There are vulnerabilities within the household that the landlord was aware of.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord arranged for an independent technical survey report of the maisonettes in the block. The report shows that there were issues of damp and mould in the property. The surveyor recommended that the landlord provided additional forced ventilation to the kitchen and bathroom areas. The resident was given some advice on how to reduce the amount of moisture in the air from day-to-day living. The surveyor set out its recommendations in a letter to the landlord on 24 August 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 May 2022. He said that:
1. He received a copy of the survey done in August 2021, but had no response from the landlord.
2. He was concerned about the effectiveness of the survey. He questioned whether consideration was given to the structure of the property.
3. Other residents in the block were decanted by the landlord following the survey. The landlord had not contacted him for the same.
4. He wanted the landlord to confirm what works were required, if any.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 June 2022 by telephone. It wrote to the resident on 15 June 2022 to extend the response by 10 working days. It said that it needed to consult with the surveyor and clarify what works were required.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 July 2022. This was around 25 working days later. It set out its understanding of the complaint. It said:
1. The survey was conducted as part of an investment programme for the block. It had agreed to install a wall covering at the property to resolve the issues with damp and mould. It had not followed up on the works as agreed. There was a service failure in its handling of these repairs and it had given feedback to its contractor.
2. It needed to arrange for a further survey to be conducted once outstanding works in the block were complete. It would conduct assessments over 3 months to monitor the progress and effectiveness of works in the block.
3. It could not provide a date for the works to be complete. It would share an action plan with the resident once it had available dates for the works.
4. It recognised that there had been service failure in its communication and delays to update the resident. It provided a named officer for future correspondence. It offered £50 compensation. This was calculated as:
  1. £25 for delays
  2. £25 for lack of information.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He asked it to escalate his complaint on 14 July 2022. He said:
1. He was unhappy with the compensation offered. He did not think the amount offered for delays and service failure was acceptable. The issues had been ongoing since December 2020.
2. There had been an unreasonable delay of 19 months from the landlord. He had continuously called to chase for updates with no response.
3. Other residents in the block were decanted due to the same mould issue. He was still having to live in the property with a 16 month old baby.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2022. He said that he had no response to his request to escalate his complaint. He felt the work was “severely overdue and delayed”. The delays were impacting on his ability to decorate the property. There were continued failings by the landlord in its communication. He asked the landlord to process his complaint or otherwise refuse it in writing so that he could submit a case to the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the request for a stage 2 complaint on 1 September 2022. It apologised for the delay and said it would issue a response by 29 September 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 3 October 2022. Its notes show that it considered there to have been miscommunication with the resident about the repairs and major works to the property. There had been no work conducted to treat the walls in the property. It said that it would extend the response time for the stage 2 complaint until 12 October 2022. The resident asked for the substantive issue to be resolved before the landlord closed the complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 October 2022. It said that it would require more time to issue the stage 2 complaint. It would issue its response by 2 November 2022. It was seeking more information internally about the works that were required to the property. It apologised for the delays in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s records show several internal emails during October and November 2022 regarding the works required at the property. The landlord noted that the property required additional insulation to prevent the reoccurrence of damp.
The resident instructed a solicitor to begin a disrepair claim in December 2022. On 5 December 2022 the solicitor wrote to the landlord with a pre-action protocol letter for a disrepair claim. The solicitor highlighted the outstanding repairs to the landlord. It said:
1. The resident had no response to his stage 2 complaint.
2. The defects at the property were causing pain and suffering, mental anguish, lower quality of life including discomfort, inconvenience, distress, and, losses. The disrepair also brought about special damages.
3. The resident had spent more money than normal on heating due to the damp and mould (around £1,635). He had spent more money than normal on cleaning products.
4. The resident and his family had personal possessions ruined by damp and mould.
5. The resident would prefer to be decanted permanently from the property.
6. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 7 December 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 7 December 2022 to say that the surveyor had arrived 2 hours earlier than agreed and he was not at home. The landlord’s internal records show that there were arrangements made for the surveyor to contact the resident again separately.
The local Environmental Health department wrote to the landlord on 20 December 2022. It provided evidence of damp and mould in the property. It issued an enforcement notice requiring the landlord to conduct repairs to the property within 13 days.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord inspected the property. A specification of works required to resolve the damp and mould were shared internally by the landlord on 9 January 2023.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it had complete repairs to the guttering on 23 January 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 8 March 2023 asking for an update on his stage 2 complaint. He said that he had no update from the landlord since 22 December 2022. He had tried calling the surveyor but had no response.
The resident contacted his local MP in April 2023. On 4 April 2023, the MP wrote to the landlord and highlighted its concerns regarding the resident’s accommodation. It asked the landlord to consider assistance with rehousing the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2023 to apologise for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. It said it was reviewing the complaint and would respond separately.
On the same day the landlord surveyed the property as part of the disrepair claim.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. This was around 11 months after the resident sought to escalate his complaint. It referred to conversations it had with the resident. It reviewed its records and noted that the resident had reported damp and mould since 2021. It listed a repair history for the property between July 2021 and January 2023. It said:
1. There were failings to record the stage 2 escalation until September 2022. It allocated the stage 2 for investigation in January 2023. It apologised for the time taken to investigate the complaint. The delay had occurred because it was considering how it could resolve the substantive issue with its surveyors.
2. The repair history showed a series of leaks from the external guttering.
3. The survey conducted in December 2022 showed that the resident’s furniture contributed to the mould growth by preventing air from circulating in the room. There was no evidence of water ingress into the living room or mould growth.
4. It upheld the complaint. It recognised that there had been severe complaint handling delays in the escalation of the case and its response at stage 2. There had been “unacceptable” delays in resolving the damp and mould. There had been poor communication with the resident to keep him updated following the surveys of the property.
5. There was key learning that it needed to implement a more robust process for its surveyor inspections. It made some improvements to its internal systems so that records were shared across the surveying and maintenance teams. It believed that by holding all records in the same system, it would improve response times and help complete repairs efficiently.
6. It set out an action plan to treat the damp and mould. It stated that it would make good all affected areas in bedrooms 1 and 2. It would complete the work in line with targets set by the resident’s legal representative.
7. It offered compensation of £1,345 for the service failures above. This included a discretionary payment for the length of time the resident had waited for repairs. It calculated the compensation offer as:
  1. £1,200 discretionary payment.
  2. £50 for complaint handling.
  3. £45 for service failures.
  4. £50 for repair delays.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. He asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint on 16 July 2023.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor called the resident to book works in to repair the damp and mould. The resident refused the works as he believed that they could not be done around him and his family. He asked the landlord to consider decanting him for the duration. The landlord’s notes show that it did not make the recommendation to decant him at this time.
On 22 November 2023, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord. Amongst other issues, it said:
1. Inspection reports were still outstanding for 12 December 2021, 22 December 2022, 14 April 2023, and 13 July 2023.
2. Repairs had been booked for 27 November 2023, but no agreement was made regarding the decant. It set out the impact the works would have on the resident and his family. It said the resident should be moved permanently or be decanted urgently.
3. There appeared to be no consultation or work schedule provided to the resident. It did not have an outline of the work to be completed.
4. It asked for the works to be suspended until a decision was made about the decant.
The landlord replied to the solicitor on 30 November 2023. It said it had given advice and guidance on the process of seeking alternative accommodation. Applications for rehousing were administered by the council. It confirmed that it would complete repairs as outlined in the experts report. It would temporarily decant the resident for the duration of the works.
The landlord wrote the residents solicitor on 13 December 2023 asking for an answer regarding the resident’s instructions. The solicitor replied to say that the resident required a permanent decant. That if a temporary decant was provided, then the landlord should focus on finding them suitable alternative accommodation urgently. It said that it felt the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s welfare and would issue a claim to the courts.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 14 December 2023. He said that the landlord had made some progress over the previous 9 months in its communication. It was agreeing to conduct repair works while the resident was temporarily decanted from the property. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision, as he wanted it to source him permanent alternative accommodation instead. He explained that the property was overcrowded and felt the issues would not be resolved by a temporary decant or repairs to the property.
The landlord’s records show that it was considering the resident’s request for a permanent decant on 10 January 2024. It determined that it did not have suitable stock available and referred his case to the local authority for rehousing.
The landlord’s contractor said that the works to resolve the damp and mould would take 3 weeks in an email to the landlord on 3 February 2024. A full schedule was provided to the Ombudsman, showing works throughout the property.
On 14 March 2024 Environmental Health inspected the property. It set out several issues that required repair. Amongst those issues raised, the following recommendations were made:
1. A suitable extractor fan was required in the kitchen.
2. Trace and remedy the source of the damp/mould in both bedrooms bedroom. Wash down all the mould affected areas and leave in a clean condition. Conduct all such other works as may be necessary to remedy the cause of damp/mould effectively and permanently. Provide evidence showing the damp/mould was addressed.
3. Investigate if the window seals are blown and renew the blown seals around the windows and ensure trickle vents are free from any obstructions.
4. The damp survey provided to the council did not mention the date when the survey was conducted. If the survey provided was not recent, a new detailed damp survey report was required.
Correspondence from the landlord in March and April 2024 shows that it has sought to decant the resident while it conducts repairs. It expected the works to take 3 weeks to complete. The resident was unavailable between 22 March 2024 and 12 April 2024. He also remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to temporarily decant him to complete works. He wanted the landlord to provide a permanent offer of alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident sought assistance with rehousing. He described being overcrowded and the impact this had on the damp and mould in the property. These concerns were also raised by the resident’s solicitor and other representatives to the landlord. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the matters arising. As the resident had not made a formal complaint regarding his request for rehousing the Ombudsman has not considered these issues as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to pursue a separate complaint on this matter with the landlord.
On 20 March 2024, Environmental Health raised issues of disrepair to the landlord. Some of the issues raised did not relate to the damp and mould. As the matters were not raised to the landlord as a formal complaint, we have not considered matters unrelated to damp and mould.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it recognised some repair issues could have an adverse impact on residents with a medical vulnerability or condition. In these situations, it will investigate the matter promptly and work in partnership with its contractors to resolve the matter. In all instances the resident’s welfare, health and safety will be its primary concern. There were no timescales provided to address nonemergency repairs.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout his tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There is an increased risk of harm to the resident, as the damp and mould were present in the bedrooms of the property.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords. The recommendations include:
1. Having a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
2. Responding to reports of damp and mould in a way that reflects the urgency of the issue.
3. Regularly and clearly communicating with residents regarding actions taken.
The landlord presented the Ombudsman with its action plan to improve its response to reports of damp and mould. However, there was no active damp and mould policy in place throughout the above timeline.
The landlord’s records show that it was aware of a persistent damp and mould problem at the property from August 2021. This is when it surveyed the property and made recommendations to replace the forced ventilation. The replacement of this forced ventilation and all internal repairs were still outstanding when Environmental Health officers inspected the property on 14 March 2024.
The landlord did not demonstrate any urgency to complete repairs at the property. It conducted several surveys to understand the problem, each with recommendations made to repair the cause. However, there was little action taken over the 2 years before October 2023. The delays to attempt any repairs caused the resident and his family distress and inconvenience. The evidence shows that the resident had to chase appointments throughout the timeline and involve third parties to get a response from the landlord.
In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the repairs. There was a lack of oversight of the case which impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident in his pursuit to resolve matters.
The resident referred to repeat calls to the landlord to chase for repairs, which were not available in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman. The surveys conducted in 2021, 2022 and 2023 were missing and not provided to the resident’s representatives when required to do so. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery.
The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of each of the surveys conducted. There are surveys in April and July 2023 that were unavailable to the Ombudsman. The absence of the findings of these surveys has impacted our understanding of the detriment caused to the resident. It has been difficult to understand the extent of the damp and mould. As a result, we have relied on the details provided in the schedule of works planned to remedy the damp and mould from February 2024. This showed that extensive works were required to each of the main living areas in the property.
It was unfair for the resident to rely on the third parties to receive updates from the landlord or to progress the repairs. There was evidence that the landlord was consulting internally and with contractors on how to resolve matters. There was no evidence to show that this information was shared with the resident. This added to the frustration caused and contributed to his need to seek assistance from third parties.
There was an over reliance on the resident to raise issues to the landlord throughout. The resident told the landlord of the vulnerabilities in his household, including having young children. These vulnerabilities increased the families’ risk of harm from damp and mould. The landlord did not demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s concerns fairly as a result.
The landlord recognised that there were service failures in its stage 1 response on 7 July 2022. It agreed to conduct a further survey of the property and provided an action plan to remedy the damp and mould. The actions included installation of a wall covering. However, there had been delays of around 11 months from its survey in August 2021 to issue this response or conduct any repairs. Its offer of £50 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused. There was an unreasonable delay to conduct repairs and the resident had to take additional time and trouble getting a response from the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that in October and November 2022 it was considering additional works to treat damp and mould. It recognised that insulation works were required to remedy the issues in the property. But no work was scheduled. The resident sought assistance from a solicitor and Environmental Health in December 2022. Each wrote to the landlord in December 2022 setting out issues of disrepair. The landlord’s survey from 20 December 2022 found evidence of damp and mould in the property and listed means to remedy the problems. This included issues with the external gutters. Despite this knowledge of outstanding repairs, none were scheduled until the gutters were repaired on 23 January 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 30 June 2023 showed that the gutters had been in disrepair since 14 July 2021 and eventually fell off completely on 16 May 2022. There were 5 reports made up to that point about leaks from the guttering alone. Requests to inspect for damp and mould followed from 29 November 2022 onwards. There was a substantial delay to repair the guttering, which was not complete until 23 January 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the further service failures in its stage 2 response. Its apology for the service failures was fair. It sought to put things right by setting out an action plan to resolve the substantive issues. However, its offer of £1,295 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused. There was a substantial period of around 2 years the resident reported problems with damp and mould. He was left for an unreasonable period without any repairs being done. Its offer did not put things right in the circumstances.
The landlord has demonstrated its intention to resolve the repairs in its most recent correspondence with the resident and the Ombudsman. Its decision to decant the resident in November 2023 was reasonable in the circumstances. It is evident from the schedule of works that there would be substantial disruption to the resident. However, this decision was made around 3 months after the most recent survey was done in July 2023. This was also after the resident had taken considerable time and trouble involving solicitors, local councillors, his MP and the Ombudsman. Additionally, there were clear concerns raised by the resident 11 months prior through his solicitor in December 2022. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s decision making.
The landlord had an opportunity at stage 2 to resolve the failures in its handling of damp and mould. It set out an action plan, that if could have followed to resolve the situation. However, it failed to proactively manage the situation post complaint. The landlord failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to put things right for the resident. There was disorganised decision making that contributed to further delays to approve a decant and to schedule any works in the property. The overall lack of oversight caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident told the landlord that he would be unavailable in March and April 2024. Despite this, there were attempts to begin repairs while he was unavailable. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision about his request for a permanent move. He said that he wanted the decisions around his rehousing to be resolved before he was decanted.
Throughout the above timeline, there were prolonged periods where the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. It is important for the landlord to maintain clear communication. The resident no longer trusted the timescales the landlord proposed to complete repairs in February 2024. He said that he felt the landlord’s estimation of 3 weeks to complete the internal repairs was unrealistic. He believed that the temporary decant would be unsuccessful as a result, as it would further inconvenience him and his family. He did not believe that the landlord has considered his circumstances fairly. The lack of communication in this case contributed to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
As a result of the landlord’s unreasonable delays, the resident was left with damp and mould in the bedrooms since around August 2021. The delays have occurred over a period of more than 2 years. During that time, the resident has had to involve several third parties to stress the severity of the impact on his family to the landlord.
It is not possible for this service to determine how severely the damp and mould impacted the bedrooms. So, we have considered compensation based on the detriment caused between August 2021 and February 2024 (when the landlord planned to decant the resident). The Ombudsman has determined that compensation amounting to around 20% of the rent charged for the period is reasonable. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2,505. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by not having full enjoyment of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. It allowed the resident to live in a property with damp and mould for around 3 years without action. There were delays in its overall decision making throughout that caused additional distress and inconvenience. The landlord has not treated the resident fairly as a result. Its offer of compensation has not put things right for the resident in the circumstances.
The landlord should pay the resident £3,800 in compensation, which includes the compensation previously offered at stage 2. It should provide a single point of contact for the resident, from a suitably senior officer who has oversight of the planned works. It should provide its schedule of works to the resident and agree an action plan including timeframes and options for the decant. It should provide weekly updates until the works are resolved.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were considerably outside those timeframes.
The landlord took around 25 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay above the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge the delay or put things right in the circumstances.
The timeline shows that the resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses to his stage 2 complaint. After seeking to escalate his complaint in July 2022, he repeatedly had to contact the landlord for a response. He asked for a response in August and October 2022. When he received no response he instructed a solicitor who also raised issues to the landlord about its complaint handling in December 2022. He then chose to contact his MP in April 2023 before the landlord issued its response in June 2023.
There was a delay of around 11 months for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. This was substantially above the timescales set out in its policy. It sought to address its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. It recognised that there had been failings at both stage 1 and 2. It said there had been failings to record the stage 2 escalation until September 2022. This was itself a delay of around 2 months. Then it did not assign his complaint for investigation until January 2023, which was a further 4 month delay. There was then a continued delay to issue its response of around 5 months.
The landlord gave some reasons for the delays its communication and the lack of responses. However, the offer of £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident. The delay was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord only issued its response after the resident had taken considerable time and trouble seeking assistance from representatives, solicitors, and the Ombudsman. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was not reflective of the time and trouble or the detriment this caused the resident.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord throughout the complaint journey. The landlord failed to treat the resident fairly, its offer of £50 compensation did not put things right in the circumstances. It should pay the resident additional £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Provide its schedule of works to the resident and agree an action plan including timeframes and options for the decant.
3. Provide a single point of contact for the resident, for a suitably senior officer who has oversight of the planned works. Providing weekly updates until the works are resolved.
4. Pay the resident compensation of £4,100. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation of £1,345 awarded in June 2023. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £3,800 for its failures to resolve damp and mould in the property.
  2. £300 for complaint handling failures.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.
The Ombudsman has recently made orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, repairs service and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.

Recommendations

The landlord should assist the resident with his request for rehousing. It should consider his position in line with its own priority move policy and overcrowding.