The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202110741)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110741

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 May 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould at her property.
    2. Request to be moved to another property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. In 2018, the resident reported that there was damp in her property. The landlord carried out a damp survey on 11 January 2019 which found that the dampness the resident reported was due to condensation as she did not use heating nor extractor fans to ventilate the property. The survey recommended that vents were installed in the property alongside a chemical damp proof course. Not all works were completed as the property was a listed building and the vents could not be installed due to the property’s listed status. The resident made a complaint on 21 January 2020 due to a reoccurrence of damp and mould in the property. The reside cancelled an appointment as she needed to self-isolate. The inspection of her property was therefore delayed and works were eventually completed on 20 July 2020 to treat the mould and repaint the affected areas.
  2. On 8 December 2020, the resident asked the landlord to provide a dehumidifier to tackle the build up of damp and mould. It agreed to provide this to her only on a temporary basis.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2021 about the ongoing damp and mould issues which reoccurred every winter. She was unhappy that the landlord’s approach had been to paint over the mould without resolving it permanently and wanted it to fully investigate the matter.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it stated that the cause of the damp and mould had been previously found to be the result of condensation and encouraged the resident to use ventilation and heating to control the humidity in the property. It proposed that its damp specialist reattend the property to carry out an inspection.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with this proposal and escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s, adding that, to resolve her complaint, she wanted to be moved to a new property. The landlord’s damp specialist provided a report on 9 July 2021 which confirmed that the cause of the recurrent mould and dampness was the result of condensation and suggested work to improve the extractor fans in the property. The landlord offered to decorate her kitchen, which was most affected by the damp and mould, stating that this was not an admission of fault, and confirmed that she did not currently meet its criteria for a managed move to another property.
  6. The resident informed this Service on 14 October 2020 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould and, to resolve her complaint, wanted to be moved to a different property which had central heating.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property

  1. The resident stated that the reported damp and mould in her property was having an impact on her health. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether the reported damp and mould had a direct link to any subsequent impact on her health. The resident may wish to consider seeking legal advice on making a personal injury insurance claim against the landlord if she feels that her health has been affected by any action or omission of the landlord’s. The Ombudsman will therefore make a determination only on whether the landlord acted in accordance with its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and the law, and whether its actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure of the property. It also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard which requires remedying.
  3. The Ombudsman would ordinarily only consider the events up to six months prior to a formal complaint being raised. However, in this case, as the resident reported recurrent damp and mould appearing each winter, historical events will be mentioned to provide context. It would therefore be expected of a landlord to carry out inspections in response to a resident’s report of damp and mould and carry out reasonable actions to tackle this. In response to the resident’s historical report of damp and mould, it carried out a specialist damp inspection on 11 January 2019 and carried out remedial works. The landlord also provided the resident with temporary use of a dehumidifier on 11 December 2020 and carried out a further damp inspection on 6 July 2021 in response to her complaint. As neither of the damp inspections identified a defect with the structure of the property, and found that the cause of the damp and mould was condensation, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out work to wash and treat the areas affected by mould and repair the extractor fans, completed on 14 July 2021.
  4. While a landlord would be expected to carry out work to the structure of a property if a defect within was causing damp and mould, if it is found that the cause of the dampness was condensation then it would be reasonable for it to suggest changes in the resident’s use of the property to address this. It is expected of a resident to occupy a property in a ‘tenant-like manner’ which includes the reasonable actions required to maintain a property. These would include: ventilating the property, cleaning any mould growth, and using heating and extractor fans to reduce moisture levels in the property.
  5. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise, in both its stage one and final complaint responses, that the resident made use of the heating and ventilation in the property to reduce the likelihood of damp and mould growth, and that there were no further actions it could take to tackle the issue. There was no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s response as it had taken all reasonable steps to address the damp and mould that were its responsibility.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to another property

  1. The landlord’s priority moves policy states that a priority move is available to those residents who are unable to remain living in their home and require urgent rehousing. The criteria for such a move include: the property has been declared unfit for human habitation, major repairs or refurbishment are required which cannot be carried out with the resident in occupation of the property or where a resident cannot enter or leave their property due to a medical condition or disability. Other exceptional circumstances may also be considered.
  2. There was no evidence that the property was uninhabitable, nor that it required major structural work in order to become suitable for the resident. While the resident said that the damp and mould were having an impact on her health, there was no evidence that any medical condition prevented her from being able to live at the property. Therefore, it was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policy that it referred her to alternative methods of seeking a new property in its final complaint response to her. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in this regard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould at her property.
    2. Request to be moved to a different property.