Southern Housing (202340257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340257

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.
   2. Record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has multiple health conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and agoraphobia.
4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 February 2024. She said she had reported damp and mould since April 2022 and while the landlord washed the walls, it should have investigated where the water was coming from. She said it was recently discovered that a pipe in the loft had been leaking for a long time. The resident said she was waiting for the landlord to repair her kitchen fan as water was entering the kitchen and there was no way to extract the condensation formed. She said the damp was spreading and her lungs were suffering as a result. She said she had COPD, chronic asthma, and emphysema. The resident referred to repairs in her living room and bathroom. She also raised concerns about repairs to the windows and the landlord not testing for asbestos. She said no plan had been made and it was having a massive impact on her health.
5. The Ombudsman forwarded the information provided by the resident to the landlord and asked that it provided a response within 15 working days.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. It said it was pleased that the roof repairs and water ingress had since been resolved and the resident’s home was drying out. The landlord confirmed that the internal works outstanding included a mould wash to all affected areas, the kitchen fan to be replaced, and a more intrusive asbestos test to be carried out. It apologised for the delays. It said it had chased the asbestos report and would contact the resident once it was available. The landlord confirmed it inspected the windows on 9 June 2022 and they would next be reviewed during 2027 – 2031. It upheld the complaint and recognised the distress caused, it offered £1,135 in compensation.
7. On 29 April 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident. It said that following a conversation with her, it understood she was dissatisfied with the following:
   1. Following the stage 1 response, the works remained unresolved, and it had been 2 years since the issues began.
   2. The outstanding works which were agreed with the landlord in February 2024 were the kitchen fan, damp and mould, and the ceilings in the living room, kitchen, hallway, and bathroom.
   3. The pipe in the loft was repaired, however, it could not be connected to the fan as it had not been replaced. She had to wait longer as the asbestos test was not carried out correctly and it had to be done again.
   4. Due to the delays, the resident’s health was impacted. She had asked to move to a property without damp and mould but had been told it was not possible.
   5. She would like all the works to be completed as soon as possible and further compensation to reflect the impact and time taken to complete the works.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024 and stated the following:
   1. It apologised that the fan works remained outstanding and that there had been multiple visits to inspect the fan, but no work carried out on the day. It said it was waiting for the ceiling works to be completed prior to installation. The landlord said the resident would be kept updated and it would ensure the work was completed as soon as possible.
   2. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the damp and mould in the property. It said the delays were due to having to re-do the initial asbestos test. The landlord confirmed it would identify and treat the mould as part of the ceiling works. It outlined what changes it had made to better handle reports of damp and mould.
   3. It apologised for the delay to the ceiling works and that it had chased its contractor to see when the work could be started.
   4. The landlord said its contractor initially carried out an asbestos test on 16 February 2024, however, it was not extensive enough to provide assurances prior to any works being carried out. It said another test was carried out on 27 March 2024 which was sufficient and gave the go ahead for the required works. The landlord confirmed it had fed back to its repairs team and contractors regarding being clear on what was needed to avoid multiple visits.
   5. It noted the resident had requested to be moved as a result of the damp and mould. It said it was sorry it was unable to assist her directly due to it not conducting internal transfers. It provided further information regarding the options available to her such as a mutual exchange and advised her who to contact should she need any support.
   6. The landlord said in recognition of its findings it wanted to increase its offer in the stage 1 response to £1,200.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said it had been months and no work had been started. She said she was still living in one room and her health was deteriorating. The resident queried whether the compensation offered was enough given the impact it had had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident reported her concerns regarding the condition of her windows to the Ombudsman. As this complaint was not escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, it has not been investigated. This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
11. Reference has been made in this investigation to the roof and the leaks which occurred. It is important to note that there is a separate investigation which is with the Ombudsman in relation to the roof works. Therefore, while reference has been made to the roof, this is for contextual purposes only, and the landlord’s handling of the issue has not been investigated.
12. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced. The report will also consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting her health and whether its response was reasonable.
13. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had reported damp and mould since April 2022. However, paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because as the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address the issues. As the formal complaint was raised in February 2024, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions from February 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs

14. The landlord has a standard operating procedure for damp and mould. It states that when the conditions of the property may be having a serious adverse health impact on the resident it should do the following:
    1. Gather the initial details of the health issue and how the property condition is adversely affecting the customer. It states that a “serious impact” marker should be added on the case. It states that the resident should be contacted the same or next working day to discuss the concerns, identify the case handler, and schedule an inspection.
    2. The inspection should take place within 5 working days. It states that the inspection should be a thorough review of the property/area, images of any concerns, temperature/humidity/moisture readings, and data loggers should be installed.
    3. Any initial temporary remedial works should be communicated and scheduled with the resident at the point of inspection.
    4. In instances where the situation or property condition immediately causes a risk to a resident’s health, the case handler should discuss options for temporary alternative accommodation.
    5. An action plan should be formed and implemented, and updates should be provided at least every 3 days.
    6. If there is no resolution in 6 weeks, the matter should be escalated to the director of repairs and estate transformation. This should include the reasons why the matter has not yet been resolved, solutions to overcome any barriers, whether the action plan needs to be reviewed, and whether temporary accommodation should be provided.

Damp and mould

15. Given the reported health conditions of the resident, which the landlord was aware of, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow the above procedure. There is no evidence that it did, which is a serious failing.
16. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with records of her appointments with the landlord over the years. As the records provided from the landlord do not always correlate or contain much detail, the Ombudsman has relied on some of the resident’s account to fully understand the issue. The records show that on 21 April 2023, following an inspection of the roof, repairs were raised for the windows, a new fan in the bathroom, and further insulation in the loft. It is unclear from the records when the repairs were completed, however, the resident has confirmed that they were. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed later in the report.
17. The resident continued to report issues with damp and mould in May 2023 and was concerned that the scheduled mould wash would not address the unreachable areas of her kitchen, such as behind the kitchen cupboard. She said it was causing her food to go mouldy. No records were provided to confirm whether the resident’s concerns were addressed. The resident’s next report appeared to be in October 2023. The resident referred to the roof repairs and that she felt they were causing mould in the kitchen. On 20 November 2023, the landlord raised a repair to inspect an air vent in the property which it felt was causing “terrible damp and mould”. It is unclear if this was actioned and what the outcome was.
18. On 31 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and stated that the mould was affecting her health. She said she had breathing issues and it had been going on for so long. She said she could not cope anymore and requested to be rehoused. In line with its procedure, the landlord had a responsibility to assess the risks to the resident and inspect the mould in the property. While the landlord continued to carry out the repairs to the roof, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection in the property, which is a failing.
19. On 2 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had to stay in her bedroom as the rest of the house was not habitable, she asked to be moved. The notes stated that she was very upset. The landlord noted that the resident’s 2 support dogs would also have to be considered for a temporary decant. It stated that the process for decants was explained to the resident and that the landlord would have to confirm if the property was uninhabitable. The advice provided at the time was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman expected to see records showing that the landlord then assessed whether the property was habitable and discussed the resident’s options with her. No such evidence has been provided, which is a failing.
20. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with copies of the medical letters she provided to the landlord in February and March 2024. The letters refer to the resident’s health conditions and that her living conditions could be a significant trigger for the resident’s worsening health. The landlord was asked to support the resident as needed. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the letters or showing any decisions made as a result of the letters. It would have been reasonable for it to have referred to the impact on the resident’s health in its stage 1 response and what action it had taken in line with its procedure. While it offered compensation for distress and inconvenience, the landlord should have considered what additional support was required for the resident.

The associated repairs

21. While it is not clear from the information provided, it is understood that the kitchen fan fell off the wall due to water penetration from the defective pipe in the loft. It is further understood that around that time, it was concluded that repairs would be required to some of the ceilings in the property as a result of the leaks from the roof and loft. In her email dated 7 February 2024, the resident said the landlord did not test for asbestos. While the Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s decision making at the time, the records show that a repair was raised on 9 February 2024 to test the ceilings for asbestos. Due to the lack of information provided from that time, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions regarding the asbestos test were reasonable.
22. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect for asbestos prior to carrying out the works for the fan and the ceilings, there were delays in it doing so. The landlord attributed this to the first asbestos survey which took place on 22 February 2024 and that it was not intrusive enough. A further test was then arranged and carried out on 27 March 2024. Altogether, it took almost 2 months for the test to be sufficiently completed, which was not appropriate. The report confirmed that no asbestos materials were identified, and as such the repairs could resume.
23. On 30 May 2024 in a visit to the resident’s property, the resident liaison officer noted that the kitchen ceiling needed to be removed and replaced, and the walls to be treated and decorated. The officer said it would then install the fan to help alleviate any potential for mould spores to grow in future. They said the bathroom ceiling had Artex coming away which needed to be scraped back, decorated, and treated for mould. They said the fan would be upgraded. The officer noted that the hallway had mould above the door, but no ceiling removal was required. The email stated that the living room ceiling needed to be removed as it was bowing, and it should be replastered and redecorated. They said the works would relieve all mould spots on the door, window, and ceiling.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays in addressing the damp and mould which it said was due to the insufficient asbestos test. It said it had recently set up a dedicated team to handle the reports, carry out inspections, and ensure works were followed through, with regular check–ins. It said once the works were completed, the resident could contact it, and it would explore that route.
25. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. At the time of sending the stage 2 response it had been over 2 months since receiving the second asbestos report, therefore the delays should not have been solely attributed to that. It would have been reasonable for it to have investigated the actual cause of the delays which may have assisted it in progressing the repairs. It was positive that the landlord outlined changes it had made in relation to handling damp and mould. However, as the resident was still experiencing the issue, it would have been appropriate for it to have applied its new approach to her case to ensure the correct action was being taken. This would have suggested that the landlord had taken a proactive approach.
26. While the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses and offered compensation, it is not acceptable that the works to the ceilings remain outstanding with no date for when they will be resolved. The Ombudsman has seen dates provided to the resident for repairs to be carried out which either never went ahead or no work was carried out on the visit. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that repairs were recently (August 2024) undertaken in the kitchen, namely the fan and damp and mould treatment. However, the damp and mould is yet to be treated anywhere else in the property.
27. Overall, it is positive that the landlord apologised for some of its failures and offered compensation. However, it failed to adequately investigate and respond to the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs. These failures likely caused a significant detriment to the resident and likely impacted on her ability to enjoy and use the home. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs. Orders will be made with the aim of putting things right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

28. The landlord took 34 working days to provide its stage 1 response and 29 working days to provide its stage 2 response. While this was outside of its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation. It also provided the reasons for the delays and contacted the resident to inform her when the stage 2 response was delayed and when she would receive a response. The landlord’s redress was reasonable.
29. On 12 July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that it had agreed to review the compensation offer made to her. It offered an additional £700 to recognise the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the time it had taken to complete the repairs. It acknowledged that the repairs were still outstanding, and it said its contracts manager would oversee the repairs and be in touch within 5 working days.
30. It would appear that the landlord revisited the compensation offered following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response. We encourage landlords to keep working with residents to resolve complaints, even after the matter has gone to the Ombudsman. However, to ensure transparency and consistency, the Ombudsman does not encourage landlords to revise compensation on the basis that residents have approached the Ombudsman.
31. As already identified, the landlord’s complaint responses were not always appropriate and indicated a lack of oversight of the repairs and failure to resolve the issues. There was reference to some of the positive changes it had made to its services and it offered compensation. However, it is troubling that at the time of writing this report, while some repairs have been completed, most are still outstanding.
32. Overall, the landlord offered £1,900 in compensation, which is broken down as follows:
    1. £80 for its failure to repair by a second appointment and a failed appointment.
    2. £25 for the delays in responding to the complaints.
    3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused since first reporting the mould.
    4. £15 for its contractors failure to follow processes.
    5. £15 for repeat visits.
    6. £15 for the resident repeatedly chasing for updates.
    7. £50 for complaint handling failures in not responding to emails or callbacks.
    8. £700 to further recognise the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the time it had taken to complete the repairs.
33. The Ombudsman finds the above compensation was proportionate to the failings identified by the landlord and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
34. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances, such as health conditions, can mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions than others. In this case, the resident had explained the impact in relation to her health conditions and why she felt the property was not habitable. The landlord should have assessed the habitability of the property in January 2024, and there is no evidence that it did. While it is difficult for the Ombudsman to conclude whether the property was habitable, the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to award further compensation for the resident’s likely loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
35. The landlord must pay an additional £1,038 in compensation. The payment is calculated at approximately 30% of the resident’s weekly rent (£101.80) and is from the resident’s report made on 2 January 2024 to the date of this determination. The 30% is to reflect the resident’s reports that she was unable to use multiple rooms in the property. For the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s record keeping

36. The landlord’s repair logs were lacking detail and did not adequately capture all the actions discussed in its correspondence with the resident and its contractors. This made it difficult to determine the exact order of events and much of the timeline is based on correspondence from the resident. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail or detailed records, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances.
37. The Ombudsman expects landlords to hold appropriate data about its products, services, and residents to inform the planning and delivery of repairs. The poor record keeping in this case not only hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation but led to the landlord exhibiting poor management and monitoring of the repairs. As such, this investigation considers the failures to amount to maladministration.

Special report on Southern Housing

38. In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns about its complaint handling, risk management, repair timescales, and knowledge and information management. The report made several recommendations, and the landlord was given 3 months to publish and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it intends to meet the recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman will not make any further orders in relation to those areas. However, the landlord should ensure it considers the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations made in the special report.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
    2. The complaint and the level of compensation offered.
    3. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
41. If it has not already done so, the landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. As per its procedure, the inspection should be a thorough review of the property, include images of any concerns, temperature/humidity/moisture readings, and the installation of data loggers, where necessary. The surveyor must produce a report identifying the likely cause of any damp and mould, recommendations to remedy it, and a schedule of works with defined timescales for the work to be completed. The schedule of works must include the outstanding works which have already been identified in this investigation. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
42. Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment taking into account the resident’s health conditions and whether the property is considered to be habitable, in the circumstances. A copy of the risk assessment must be provided to both the Ombudsman and the resident, including any follow up actions required for the landlord.
43. The landlord must pay a total of £2,938 to the resident. This includes the compensation of £1,900 already offered.
44. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

45. The landlord should ensure it considers the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations made in the special report.