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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202346818)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346818

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 July 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 the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy that started on 6 February 2009. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is described as 2-bedroom first floor flat located in a purpose-built block.
  3. The resident has informed this Service that her daughter is autistic.
  4. The landlord’s records show complaints about damp and mould dating back to 2018. In January 2021, it agreed to replace the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the hallway, then replace the thermal boarding to the bedroom walls to resolve the mould. The landlord received letters from the resident’s GP on 5 October 2022 and 25 January 2023 regarding the impact of the damp and mould on household members.
  5. On 4 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord stating that she was having difficulty escalating her complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure. She went on to say that she had cancelled the appointment for the replacement PIV unit as she wanted it to first remove the “fake walls”. When cancelling the appointment for the replacement PIV, she was told that someone would contact her and no one had done so. The resident concluded by advising that the mould in the bedroom had caused damage to her furniture and clothes and affected the health of her family.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 March 2023, advising that it would provide its complaint response by 11 April 2023. On 11 April 2023, it requested an extension to 18 April 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its complaint response on 17 April 2023. It advised that its surveyor had attended on 15 March 2023 and set out the schedule of works it had agreed. It explained that due to the current unavailability of the replacement PIV unit, this would be installed by 1 May 2023. A further surveyor inspection had been arranged for 19 April 2023 and that surveyor would be responsible for overseeing the completion of the works. It apologised for the time, trouble and disruption experienced by the resident and made a compensation award of £100.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 6 July 2023 to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 1 August 2023. The landlord accepted and apologised that the mould works had not addressed the damp issues in the property. It had arranged a further independent inspection of the walls on 7 August 2023 and once it received the report, it would arrange for the resident to be decanted. It acknowledged the resident’s communication difficulties with the point of contact it had appointed and advised that it had changed the point of contact to another officer. It was aware that the new point of contact had been in contact with the resident on 26 July 2023.
  9. On 8 August 2023, the landlord’s contractor sent a quote to carry out thermal board insulation works, including fungicidal treatment and isolation membrane, at the resident’s property. The landlord was advised that the amount of furniture and stored items restricted its inspection of the external walls.

Events after the end of the complaints process

  1. The contractor informed the landlord on 4 October 2023 that it contacted the resident to book in the works but she required further information about the decant before she agreed to the works starting.
  2. The landlord attempted to arrange for the works to start in November 2023. However, the resident outlined her preference for the works to start in January 2024 when she would be away. The start date was postponed to the Easter holidays as the resident advised this would be more suitable for her to prepare her daughter and allow for agreed appointments for her children.
  3. On 4 January 2024, the landlord increased the compensation award to £450 for time, trouble and disruption.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1.  The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the relevant events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in January 2021 about damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process or was escalated to this Service. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from March 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to March 2022 is made in this report to provide context only.
  3. The resident has also requested a transfer to larger accommodation. As this does not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. It is noted that the resident made the complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2024 and the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues that the resident has raised. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she can approach the Ombudsman for the complaint to be considered.
  4. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Not can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
  5. This has clearly been a difficult situation for the resident and her family due to the length of time it has been ongoing. The Ombudsman appreciates the stress that the resident experienced. However, this investigation must consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns, in line with its responsibilities.

Damp and mould.

  1. The landlord has an obligation to maintain the resident’s property to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in an appropriate timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s submission to this Service shows that it had assessed in April 2021 that the extractor fans needed to be replaced as they had not been correctly installed. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges her to provide access for the landlord and/or its contractors to carry out repairs. The resident has acknowledged that she did not do this as she wanted the landlord to remove thermal boarding from the walls first. The landlord’s records do not show that it acted to progress the repairs to the property although it was aware that the PIV units were not correctly installed and that the resident had not allowed access.
  3. The landlord received letters from the resident’s GP in October 2022 and January 2023, advising of the presence of damp in the property and the impact on the resident and her family. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on these reports. This was not reasonable, particularly as the landlord had already been put on notice by the resident (in June 2022) of mould growing from behind plasterboard. The resident experienced a further 6-month delay from October 2022 until the landlord took action to progress the inspection in March 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again in March 2023 to report the damp and mould. Within 7 working days, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property (on 15 March 2023) to determine the cause and identify any necessary works to address the mould. This was in line with its damp and mould operating procedure.
  5. The inspection found black mould in the corner external walls to the main bedroom and to the external wall to the second bedroom. There was also staining to the ceiling and the back wall to the living room. It assessed that the property was not damp and recommended that the extractor fans be inspected and for a mould wash and treatment be carried out. A repair was raised for a gully to be jet washed. It was reasonable of the landlord to assess all the possible causes of damp, especially as the mould was present in the bedroom occupied by the resident’s children.
  6. A further surveyor inspection was undertaken on 11 April 2023 which found evidence of surface mould on the thermal boarding walls and window reveals in the bedrooms. It noted that the trickle vents were closed and these needed to kept open. It agreed to replace the PIV units to the hallway and to replace the PIV unit to the kitchen. These were reasonable actions to improve the ventilation to the property.
  7. The landlord’s damp and mould operating procedure says that work to resolve damp and mould will be concluded within 6 weeks. The landlord experienced a delay in obtaining the PIV units due to supply problems, which led to it offering an installation date of May 2023. Its contractor attended on 1 June 2023 to carry out mould works. This included the washing of the mould, application of the extruded membrane to the rear elevation wall, renewal of the thermal insulation board and skirting board, refitting of radiator pipes and rehanging of curtains. Overall, it took the landlord around 3 months to undertake and complete the works to the resident’s property, which exceeded its target timescale to resolve reports of mould.
  8. The landlord carried out a post inspection of the work carried out by the contractor on 28 June 2023. It assessed that the repairs had resolved the mould and no further repairs were required. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff so it was reasonable for it to conclude that the work carried out to the property was satisfactory.
  9. The contractor also advised the landlord that due to the household size and belongings, the resident would need to be temporarily accommodated. The quote provided by the contractor was to apply anti-mould paint to the recently plastered walls. Therefore the bedrooms needed to be emptied of the resident’s belongings. The landlord acted in line with its damp and mould operating procedures when it agreed that temporary alternative accommodation would be provided for the resident and her family. As the resident’s 2 sons and daughter share a bedroom, there were various personal items which meant that there would be insufficient clearance in the bedroom for the works to be carried out. It is noted that the resident has made a separate complaint to the landlord about her request for permanent rehousing so this will not be considered further in this report.
  10. In its August 2023 final complaint response, the landlord accepted that the original works carried out to the property did not resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It was appropriate that it apologised to the resident for this as it had previously carried out a post inspection of the workmanship and materials used and decided that this had eradicated the cause of the damp and mould when it had not. After the resident’s further report of mould in the property, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its contractor to reattend to assess the further works required to the property.
  11. The landlord accepted that there were deficiencies in its communication with the resident. Good communication with a resident provides reassurance that the matter is being taken seriously and being considered with appropriate priority. The landlord acknowledged that although a point of contact had been appointed, the resident had still experienced communication delays. It was appropriate that it changed the point of contact and checked that they had been in contact with the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether a landlord has acted reasonably in response to a repair request and this can require consideration of the resident’s own actions which may have contributed to the situation. The landlord agreed to a temporary decant but there were delays in this being progressed. The resident has stated that the personal circumstances of her family (such as her daughter’s medical condition) have meant that she is unable to agree to a date for the temporary move. The landlord accepted that for the work to be completed, the resident needed to move on a temporary basis. Given that the resident has a child with a medical condition, it was reasonable for the landlord to allow her additional time to move into temporary accommodation. The landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays caused in this instance. However, this Service is aware that the works have not started to the property and an order is made about this later in the report.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy is based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Through the complaint process, the landlord awarded the resident compensation of £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience that she experienced. During its complaint review in August 2023, the compensation award was not mentioned and remained unchanged. The landlord increased the compensation award in January 2024 (awarding £450) without explanation or setting out the reasons for its decision to do so. The landlord has not explained the reason for the increase of the compensation award to £450 (which falls within its second band of £250 to £700) and nor did it explain whether this amount was inclusive of its original compensation award of £100 or not. This is not reasonable as it would not have offered clarity to the resident.
  14. Although the total compensation of £550 referred to by the landlord is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for occasions where a failure has adversely impacted a resident, this was not achieved through the complaints process. It is not evident why the landlord undertook a further review of its redress and missed the opportunity to do so within the complaints process. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. At the first stage, complaints are to be answered within 10 working days and they should be responded to within 20 working days at its final stage.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 March 2023 requesting that it escalate her complaint about the damp and mould in the property to the final stage of the complaints process. In response, the landlord raised an inspection of the property and it took until 28 March 2023 it to acknowledge the complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s email as a new complaint, it did not acknowledge the complaint within its published timescale of 5 working days.
  3. In line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss her complaint. It apologised for its delay in responding which was appropriate.
  4. Where a landlord cannot meet the timelines set out in the Complaint Handling Code, it can request an extension of 10 working days from the resident. The landlord did so by contacting the resident on 11 April 2023 and advising that it needed more time to provide its complaint response (until 18 April 2023). The landlord provided its complaint response on 17 April 2023, within 14 working days of the date the complaint was acknowledged and therefore narrowly outside of its target timescale albeit it communicated appropriately about this delay.
  5. The resident initially contacted the landlord requesting for the landlord to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord did not address this until 33 working days later (21 April 2023) when it explained that the previous complaint made in 2021 had been closed. Therefore, it was too late to escalate the complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. While the landlord’s position was reasonable and was in line with its complaint procedure, it took too long to respond to the resident’s escalation request and explain its position.
  6. After the resident’s further (post-stage 1 complaint) escalation request, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 23 June 2023 that its complaint panel would meet to discuss her concerns on 12 July 2023. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 1 August 2023. This took 27 working days in total which was narrowly outside its published complaint handling targets.
  7. The landlord assessed that the resident was entitled to compensation and (as referred to above) awarded amounts of £100 and then £450 albeit its submission to this Service does not provide a breakdown showing how it calculated the amount due to the resident. Therefore, it is not possible to say for certain how much it awarded for the delay in completing the damp and mould works to the property and what was for its complaint handling failures. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this investigation, it has been assumed that the £550 total was towards the failings in its handling of damp and mould reports.
  8. The landlord’s compensation proforma to be completed when the resident accepts compensation refers to “full and final settlement”. It also informs the resident that an acceptance of the compensation means that no further claim can be made and that the resident is willing for the complaint to be closed. It is inappropriate to refer to the compensation offer as “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase indicating that, if the compensation award were accepted, the resident would not be able to make a further claim. That is misleading, given the resident was entitled to make a further claim or refer her complaint to this Service. The use of the phrase may have led the resident to understand there was no further negotiation open to her, which was not the case.
  9. The resident complained about damage to her furniture and belongings. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns during the complaint process despite confirming the presence of mould in the property. Also, the landlord did not explain whether the resident could make a claim for damages by signposting the resident on how she could make a liability claim. Furthermore, it did not offer to assess the damaged items and offer compensation where it believed there was damage due to the mould. This was not reasonable.
  10. Given the delays identified in the complaints process, the uncertainty regarding the management of the compensation offer and the lack of response on the damages issue, a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord should make a compensation award in recognition of this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1.    Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. apologise for the complaint handling failures identified in this report;
      2. inform her how she can make a claim for her damaged furniture and belongings, including the details of its insurer;
      3. confirm the current schedule of works it has planned to address mould in the property, including an updated single point of contact for her to use should there be any concerns during the decant period and any interim works it can complete pending the decant.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £650, made up of:
      1. £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings;
      2. £550 that it has already offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of damp and mould reports.