Southern Housing (202234466)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234466

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 response to the resident’s reports and complaints about mould, an extractor fan, lack of heating, and repairs to a window.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for a two-bedroomed flat, where he lives with his partner and daughter. The landlord advised us it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, during the complaint, the resident reported that his daughter has asthma and experienced chest infections, and that the property condition had affected their mental health.
The resident reported that his boiler was broken in November 2019, and that the bathroom extractor fan was broken in January 2021. The landlord has advised us that these repairs were completed, but we do not have more detail as to what was done.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord recorded a report from the resident that the bathroom extractor fan was broken, and mould was growing on the bathroom walls, ceiling, and grout.
On 13 March 2022 the resident reported that a bedroom window handle lock was broken.
The landlord’s records show that on 24 May 2022, it had identified that a new bathroom extractor fan was required. On 24 September 2022 the landlord raised an order to its contractor to fit a replacement extractor fan in the bathroom. It is not clear why there was a gap of several months between these events.
On 13 October 2022, the annual gas safety inspection was carried out at the property, and a gas safety record was issued stating that no faults with the boiler or heating system were identified.
The resident says he contacted the local council’s environmental health team on 25 November 2022, telling it that there was a “severe mould issue” in his home, and that the extractor fan was still broken. He says he asked it to intervene.
On 7 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with outstanding repairs at the property, and the fact that there had been numerous appointments arranged but no repairs completed. He said that he had reported that his heating did not work at least four years previously. He explained he had had no heating since then, and had used expensive oil heaters to keep the property warm over the three winters that had passed. He reported that his daughter’s bedroom window was broken letting in cold air. He explained that she suffered with asthma, a permanent cough, numerous chest infections, and the property condition had affected her education. He also reported that the bathroom was “riddled” with mould due to the extractor fan not working.
The resident told us he submitted a stage 1 complaint on 31 March 2023. After he did not receive a response, he contacted this Service. We wrote to the landlord on 4 May 2023, requiring it to respond to the resident.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord raised a new repairs order for a boiler inspection and a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould. It raised a further request for a survey on 15 May 2023.
The landlord issued an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 May 2023. It assigned the complaint with a date of 11 May 2023, and explained that it understood the issues to be:
1. Delays to the bathroom extractor fan replacement;
2. Damp and mould in the property;
3. No heating in the property for four years;
4. A broken window which caused draughts.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord raised a new order to its contractor for the replacement of the extractor fan. The landlord recorded this as completed on 24 May 2023. On the same day, the resident reported to the landlord that its contractor had attended to inspect the fan, and though a replacement could be sourced for the following day, it could only book in an appointment after six weeks. The resident explained that he was unhappy that this had left the bathroom with a hole in the ceiling. In response, the landlord arranged for the fan replacement to be booked in for 1 June 2023 and raised another job to repair the window handle and possible broken seals around the window.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2023. It:
1. Recognised that the resident had first reported the broken extractor fan in January 2021, and that it was a “repeat issue” as he reported it broken again in February 2022;
2. Explained that its contractor had booked appointments to replace the fan on 16 June 2022 and 11 August 2022. It had made three attempts to contact the resident on 24 September 2022 to book a new appointment, and when it did not reach him it had closed the job;
3. Advised that it had no record of the resident requesting a repair in relation to damp and mould in the last six months, with the most recent report it identified being 23 February 2022. Its complaint handler had asked its surveyor to attend to assess the damp and mould by 13 June 2023, and to arrange any repairs they identified as required;
4. Advised that similarly it had last recorded receiving a report of the broken window handle on 23 February 2022, and had not recorded any reports within the last six months. The complaint handler had raised a new repair request with a target completion date of 27 June 2023, and someone would be in touch to arrange an appointment;
5. Advised that it also had no record of the resident requesting a repair to the heating system in the last six months, with the last repair on record being in relation to a defective boiler in November 2019. Since the resident had raised his complaint, the landlord’s gas contractor had attended and ordered a replacement thermostat on 10 May 2023. The contractor’s operative missed an appointment scheduled for 15 May 2023, and a new appointment was booked and attended the next day. The operative had confirmed the heating was left in working order;
6. Apologised that the resident had “cause to complain” to it;
7. Offered a total of £495 compensation, made up of:
  1. £350 for inconvenience;
  2. £50 for the delays to the repair;
  3. £50 for delays in its complaint handling;
  4. £15 for service failure due to repeat visits;
  5. £15 for miscommunication;
  6. £15 for service failure due to the failure to follow its policy.
On 31 May 2023, the resident accepted the compensation but reserved the right to request further compensation if the works were not completed. He asked the landlord for additional compensation of £50 a year for the lack of heating.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 June 2023 to install the new extractor fan. The before and after photos it took of the bathroom show what appears to be mould around the fan.
On 20 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He reported that the surveyor due to inspect the damp and mould had not attended, and the contractors who installed the new extractor fan “could not believe” the state of the bathroom and that nothing had been done for over four years. He said spores of black mould were continuing to “grow everywhere”. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 3 July 2023 that it had escalated his complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 10 July 2023, and the landlord’s internal records show they identified that the damp and mould in the bathroom was caused by the broken extractor fan, which they confirmed had since been replaced.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 July 2023. It:
1. Apologised to the resident for the delays and that its surveyor had not attended sooner, as had been promised;
2. Advised that its surveyor had raised a job to treat the damp and mould in the bathroom, and that a repair for the window handle was booked for 26 July 2023;
3. Advised that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, and offered an additional £140 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 for the delay in its surveyor attending to inspect the property;
  2. £50 for the delay in raising a repair to the window handle;
  3. £40 towards the redecoration of the bathroom;
4. Advised that it would not offer compensation for the heating issues the resident raised at stage 1, because it could not see any records of a repair request before its “last attendance”. It noted that there was a report of a defective boiler in November 2019, but that repair had been completed.
The resident responded on the same day, and explained that he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered, noting again the impact the property condition had had on his family.
The landlord replied to him on 13 July 2023, and advised the resident that “health claims” were not covered by its compensation policy. It provided him with information to enable him to make a liability claim through its insurance policy. The landlord reiterated the repairs history, setting out its six attempts to arrange an appointment to repair the extractor fan between 12 February and 21 April 2021. It noted that it had not received a further report of the fan not working until February 2022, with two failed appointments in June and August of that year. It acknowledged again that it took longer than it “would expect” to replace the fan, and reiterated that it had already offered compensation towards redecorations.
On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord and said he would accept the increased offer for the current delays, but noted he was yet to be given a date for the mould removal and treatment. He said that if this was not completed in a satisfactory timescale, he wanted to reserve the right to re-open his complaint.
The landlord’s records show the window handle repair was completed on 26 July 2023 as scheduled.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to attend to carry out the mould wash on 22 August 2023, but reported that it had not received answers when it tried knocking on the door and phoning the resident. When the landlord contacted the resident about this, he advised it that he had expected the contractor to attend on 18 August 2023 and had not had prior notice of the appointment on 22 August 2023. He also said he had not received any calls from the contractor.
The landlord asked the resident to contact the contractor to book in a new appointment. The resident objected to this request, asking the landlord to contact the contractor and asking why he should have to “chase” the contractor. The landlord explained that it thought it would be easier for the resident to liaise directly with the contractor, rather than lots of messages being relayed through the landlord between the two parties.
Approximately a month later, on 4 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it again to arrange a date for the works, explaining that he and his partner were busy “constantly working”. He chased the landlord for an update on 26 October 2023 and 21 November 2023.
On 23 November 2023 the landlord again raised a job to its contractor for a mould wash.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 December 2023, and told it the contractor had failed to attend.
The resident chased the mould wash with the landlord on 2 and 9 February 2024, explaining on the second date that the contractor had been due to attend that day and had not turned up. The landlord’s records confirm that its contractor cancelled an appointment to complete a mould wash on that day. The resident expressed his frustration that there had been three missed appointments from the landlord’s contractor within six months, and asked it to compensate him for the wages he lost when he took time off from work on each occasion.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day, and apologised. It contacted its contractor, and told the resident it recognised the contractor had not communicated the cancellation. The landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint on 12 February 2024, to cover the missed appointments between 7 December 2023 and 9 February 2024, and the further delays to the repairs the resident experienced after the end of the previous stage 2 complaint process.
On 20 February 2024 the contractor tried attending again to carry out the mould wash, and it told the landlord the resident had refused to allow it access to the property because it turned up between 10 and 15 minutes early for the scheduled appointment (which the resident had been advised would be attended in a four-hour window between 1pm and 5pm that day). It advised the landlord that the resident was no longer taking calls from it and it could not confirm his availability for a new appointment.
On 11 March 2024 the resident told this Service that “nothing” had “been done” to treat the mould, and it was “spreading and getting worse”. He described mould covering the family’s toothpaste tubes, and that mould was starting to grow outside the bathroom door. He told us that they did not have visitors to the property, because it was “embarrassing”.
On 18 March 2024, the landlord asked its contractor to book in a new appointment with the resident, and issued a new stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Confirmed that its decorator would attend to carry out a mould wash on 25 March 2024 (after it had initially offered to attend on 19 March 2024, which the resident had declined);
2. Apologised for the delay to the work promised as part of the previous complaint resolution, and recognised the “frustration and upset” this had caused the resident;
3. Advised that it upheld the complaint, and offered the resident additional compensation:
  1. £125 for inconvenience, time and trouble;
  2. £15 for the failure to follow its process regarding the time of appointments;
  3. £15 for the repeat visits to resolve the outstanding repair;
  4. £15 for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s contractors completed the mould wash on 25 March 2024 as planned.
The landlord has advised us that this second complaint has not been escalated to stage 2. It also advised that it has no record of receiving contact from the council’s environmental health team. The resident has told us that he did not receive a reply from the environmental health team either.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation is focused on the repairs that the resident reported from 2022 onwards. We will consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint in 2023, as well as the more recent stage 1 which the landlord responded to in March 2024. We consider it fair to include the outcome of that complaint in this assessment because the matters were so closely linked to the resident’s original complaint.
We acknowledge that the second complaint has not been escalated to stage 2, however we consider that it is relevant that both parties were aware that the resident’s complaint had been accepted by this Service and was due to be investigated by us in the near future. It is important that the second complaint only arose to address the fact that some of the promised actions in the landlord’s previous stage 2 complaint response remained outstanding.
The Ombudsman does not make decisions related to matters of health, as these are medical issues and fall outside the scope of our investigation. The landlord has a separate process for claims in relation to personal injury under its public liability insurance policy. It was appropriate that it directed the resident to submit a claim in this way for the specific impacts he described to his family’s health, as we do not expect it to address these under its complaint process.

Background

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”), the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
Under Section 9.a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy. This includes the property being free from damp and other hazards, which are set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)introduced by the Housing Act 2004.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021 and available here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-damp-and-mould/ ) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this;
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an effective resolution;
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould;
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.

Repair to the heating system

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the boiler was broken in 2019. It has told us that this was repaired at the time, although we have not seen direct evidence of this. The landlord’s annual gas safety inspection found no fault in October 2022. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on the evidence seen, that the landlord could not reasonably have been expected to be aware that there was a problem with the heating system until the resident wrote to it on 7 March 2023.
The resident raised specific health and welfare concerns in relation to the property being cold, and this should have prompted the landlord to ensure that the issue was fixed swiftly. However, the heating was not inspected and repaired for over two months, when it was identified that a new thermostat was needed.
In its stage 1 complaint response of May 2023, the landlord did not say whether or not it had recognised failure in its service around the heating repair. In its stage 2 response, it told the resident it would not offer the compensation he had requested because it did not have a record of him reporting the issue prior to March 2023. Its second stage 1 response, of March 2024, did not cover the matter of the heating.
This was not an appropriate resolution to the issues the resident raised, with the repair unreasonably delayed beyond the timeframe that would be expected for a standard repair, and with no reference to the resident’s family’s specific situation and the time of year. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the delays, and to examine what lessons it can learn from the resident’s experience, and orders are made to that effect below.

Repair to the window

The resident reported that the handle to one of the windows was broken in March 2022. In March 2023 he explained to the landlord the impact that draughts coming from the window were having on his daughter, and at the end of May 2023 he speculated that the insulation strip may also need repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that the landlord was aware that the resident reported the broken handle in March 2022, but appeared to suggest that its failure to fix this in a timely way was mitigated by the fact the resident did not report this again until March 2023. This is an example of poor use of information on the part of the landlord, and an unreasonable position for it to take. It should not be necessary for residents to report a repair more than once for it to be completed.
The landlord offered compensation for repairs delays in its stage 1 response, however nothing in the wording of its letter indicated this was in relation to the window repair. The landlord’s response was improved at stage 2 of its complaint process, when it offered the resident £50 compensation specifically for the delay to the window repair. It promised to inspect and complete the outstanding repair as part of its complaint resolution.
The repair was completed shortly after the stage 2 response was issued, on 26 July 2023. The matter did not fall within the scope of the landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response in March 2024.
The window handle repair did take an unreasonable amount of time to be completed after the resident’s first report, and again the landlord did not provide detail in its complaint responses to explain why this occurred. There are no records indicating that the landlord recognised the impact of the drafts that the resident had set out, including to his daughter’s education, in its process of organising the repair or in its calculation of redress (compensation).
This demonstrates poor engagement with the issues the resident had raised to the landlord, and it is understandable that the resident was left dissatisfied with the response he received from it. When considering the impact of this failure on the resident, it is our opinion that the amount of compensation should be increased.

Repairs to the extractor fan and mould

The resident’s complaint was that there had been mould in the property for four years. We have not seen direct evidence that the mould had been present for that length of time. However, this investigation has taken note that mould was reported on the walls in February 2022, that the resident said he raised this with the local authority, that the resident reported that he had redecorated the bathroom on four occasions, and that, most crucially, the landlord itself had identified a causal link between the broken extractor fan and the mould.
According to the landlord, the resident’s first report that the extractor fan was not working was made in January 2021, and a repair was carried out.
No further action was taken until the resident raised the issue again in February 2022. It was not until June 2022, August 2022 and September 2022 that attempts to make appointments were made by the landlord’s contractor, on its behalf. There is no explanation for these failed appointments. We note that, according to the landlord, in September 2022, the contractor tried to call the resident three times before it closed the repair job.
The resident emphasised the extent of the mould to the landlord in March 2023. The landlord has not explained why it took until May 2023 for an inspection of the fan to be carried out, with a new extractor fan installed shortly after this on 1 June 2023. It was welcome that the landlord had decided to send its own surveyor to inspect the property as part of its initial complaint resolution, however this should not have needed a complaint to be put in place.
The landlord recognised in its stage 1 complaint response of May 2023 that it had failed to follow its repairs policy when dealing with the extractor fan repair. It offered the resident a total of £495 compensation in the stage 1 response, of which a large proportion appeared to be in relation to the matter of the damp and mould. This included £350 for inconvenience, £50 for delays to repair, £15 for repeat visits, £15 for failure to follow policy, offered along with the amounts for miscommunication and complaint handling delays. The landlord’s wording in the complaint letter did not make it sufficiently clear what exactly these were for, and this is a learning point for the landlord.
The resident remained dissatisfied when the repairs were not completed as promised. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of July 2023 recognised this, and it offered additional compensation of £50 for the delay to the surveyor’s appointment and £40 for the redecoration of the bathroom.
It is particularly concerning that after the new fan was successfully installed in June 2023, the mould wash was not completed until March 2024. The landlord issued a fresh stage 1 complaint response on 18 March 2024, and offered the resident a further £220 compensation.
This brought the total compensation offered to the resident in relation to its failures around the damp and mould to £805. This would have been a reasonable figure, had the landlord demonstrated appropriate steps to put the situation right had also been taken. The steps should have included proper investigation of what had gone wrong, details of this provided in the complaint response, and appropriate learning identified and put in place.

Overall handling of the repairs

There was a failure by the landlord to identify why things went wrong. The resident had asked it to intervene when relations between him and the contractor had broken down in summer 2023, but the landlord missed this opportunity to resolve the situation and the mould wash request was closed after an appointment failed to materialise. The landlord needed to have better oversight of the actions it had promised in response to the resident’s complaint, and the ultimate result is that the resident experienced further distress and inconvenience while waiting for the matter to be resolved.
In summary, despite attempts to apologise to and compensate the resident for delays to what were relatively straightforward repairs, the landlord did not take enough steps to ensure they were completed in a timely way after the resident had complained. Its failures to fully explain what had gone wrong left the resident feeling he had not been heard, and added to the upset he was caused. Its responses did not reassure us that it understood where it should and could improve the way it handles such repairs. When considering the overall impact of the landlord’s failures, we have found maladministration.
The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation as redress for the avoidable distress and inconvenience he was caused.
We have not made specific orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s damp and mould procedures because we can see that it recently reviewed its policies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and complaints about mould, an extractor fan, lack of heating, and repairs to a window.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failure to ensure that it used its complaint process to appropriately resolve the matters he had raised.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately address and resolve the matters he had raised.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a case review and confirm to us what learning it has identified from this complaint, and any changes it will make as a result.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord offer guidance to its staff interacting with contractors, to ensure that it provides appropriate assistance to resolve potential communications issues between contractors and residents.
We recommend that the landlord consider whether it has an appropriate system in place to ensure that actions identified to resolve complaints are adequately progressed, and whether complaint handlers could benefit from any additional guidance regarding the responsibility for the monitoring and completion of promised actions offered in complaint resolutions.