Southern Housing — case 202520130

Decision Case ID 202520130 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southern Housing Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 26 March 2026 Background The resident uses a machine at night to help him breathe. He complained about persistent damp in the bathroom and in 2 bedrooms. The landlord also incorporated complaints about a roof leak and a ceiling containing asbestos into the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A roof repair.

Damp and mould. Replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos. The complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of: a roof repair damp and mould replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Roof leak The landlord took 8 months to complete a repair to the roof and it did not keep the resident informed during this time. Damp and mould We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a timely damp and mould inspection of the property or completed a risk assessment.

The damp and mould remain an issue. It is also unclear whether the cause of the problem is resolved. Ceiling The landlord did not communicate well with the resident when he first reported the issue. There was a delay in it instructing a contractor to remove the ceiling and it did not keep the resident informed about this. Following the resident declining the work it has not re-assessed the risk posed. Complaint There were long delays and the landlord did not use the complaint handling process to resolve the issue.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: a manager provides the apology the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 23 April 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof repair. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould.

£100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ceiling replacement. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. No later than 23 April 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Completes a full damp and mould inspection of the property and produces a written report with photographs.

The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). This to include redecoration of the affected areas as promised in the stage 1 complaint response as required.

The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. No later than 07 May 2026 4 The landlord must commission a new asbestos survey of the bathroom ceiling by the due date and provide a copy to this Service and the resident. No later than 07 May 2026 5 The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to offer another appointment for a specialist contractor to replace the ceiling in the bathroom.

No later than 07 May 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 28 May 2025 The resident complained to the landlord. He said that: there was an issue with damp and mould in the shower room and 2 bedrooms in the property which he had verbally complained about numerous times he had various medical issues and felt that the poor housing conditions had impacted his wellbeing he felt that the property was not fit for habitation he wanted the landlord to inspect and repair the property.

4 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. 18 June 2025 The landlord told the resident that it needed longer to respond and extended the deadline to 2 July 2025. 2 July 2025 The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that: its records showed that the resident reported damp and mould in November 2024 following this it had passed the work to the repairs team in June 2025 the repairs team had booked internal damp and mould remedial work but had not raised a job to repair the roof it upheld the complaint and offered £120 compensation this was comprised of £60 for the delays, £15 for not arranging a roof repair within an acceptable timeframe, £15 because the resident had to chase updates, £15 for poor communication, and £15 for unreasonable delays by the damp and mould team.

2 July 2025 The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He said that the compensation offer did not reflect the severity of the situation 28 July 2025 The resident wrote to the landlord. He said that: he had not received an update since asking it to escalate the complaint part of the shower room ceiling had collapsed an operative had recently told him that the property might contain asbestos both bedrooms had extensive damp and mould damage.

29 July 2025 The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 escalation. 15 August 2025 The landlord advised the resident that it needed more time to respond to the stage 2 complaint. 19 September 2025 The landlord extended the deadline to respond to the stage 2 complaint again. 30 September 2025 The landlord emailed the resident to extend the response deadline again. 7 October 2025 The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: it was sorry that it had left the resident with a hole in the shower room ceiling.

It should have raised a repair job to complete this but apologised that it had not done so a specialist asbestos contractor would attend on 28 October 2025 to remove the ceiling in the shower room. The reinstatement team would attend on 29 and 30 October 2025 to provide a new one the resident would be able to access the room during this time and the only time he may need to leave was during the removal process which would take a couple of hours it apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response and increased the compensation offer to £700 comprising of an additional £350 for the further impact, £100 for complaint handling failures, £15 for the resident having to chase it, and £15 for a failure to follow process and make the ceiling safe.

Referral to the Ombudsman In March 2026 the resident told us that damp and mould was still an issue in 2 bedrooms, the bathroom, and the lounge. He said that he would like the cause of the damp and mould rectified and redecoration of the affected areas, the landlord to provide temporary accommodation while specialists replaced the bathroom ceiling, and financial compensation to reflect the distress caused. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Roof repair Finding Maladministration The resident has said that the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue has affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Instead, we have considered whether he experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days of a resident reporting them. Where this is not possible it will keep residents informed of the reasons for the delay. There is evidence that the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in November 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that a roof leak caused this. However, it did not raise a repair job until 11 February 2025. This lengthy delay was unacceptable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he was living with ongoing damp and mould in the property.

A contractor completed repairs to the roof on 7 July 2025 when they cleared debris from the gutters and refixed a slipped tile. The landlord did not keep the resident informed of the reasons for the delay. Overall, it took the landlord 8 months to complete the roof repair, this was not in line with its policy and it did not keep the resident informed. This caused him distress and inconvenience and cost him time and trouble making a complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of a roof repair.

Complaint Damp and mould Finding Maladministration The landlord’s damp and mould operating procedure says that following a report of damp and mould it aims to contact the resident on the same or next working day. It says it will arrange a visual inspection of the property within 10 working days. The procedure also says that it aims to complete any necessary work within 6 weeks and if a case remains unresolved after 5 weeks the matter should be escalated to the director of repairs and estate transformation.

In his complaint the resident said that there had been a longstanding issue with damp and mould in the property for years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult to complete a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Taking this and the availability and reliability of evidence into account, this assessment has focussed on the period from 11 November 2024 onwards.

As detailed in the previous section, following the resident’s report of damp and mould we have seen no evidence that the landlord took action until 11 February 2025 when it logged a repairs job. The landlord noted that it called the resident the same day but received no reply. It then cancelled the job on 23 April 2025 and raised another on the same day but we have seen no evidence that it completed a damp and mould or risk assessment. It is important that a landlord completes risk assessments to understand the severity of the issue and to demonstrate that it has considered whether a residents health condition would be affected.

It may also mean that it finds the cause of the damp and mould sooner. The contractor that completed the roof repair said on the quotation that the “property is suffering from mould issues. This is not related to roof leak. Internal inspection by another contractor required.” During this time the resident took further time and trouble contacting the landlord. In 1 of his emails, he told it that another contractor attended the property on 22 July 2025 and said that the problem lay with inadequate ventilation in the roof area, leading to condensation.

We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on any advice given by this contractor, and the resident has told us that the damp and mould issue remains. In summary, we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a timely inspection of the property, or that it has completed a risk assessment in the 15 months since the resident reported the issue. We have also seen no evidence that the matter was escalated in accordance with the landlord’s procedure. The resident has advised us that the damp and mould is still a problem.

It is also unclear whether the landlord has rectified the cause of the issue. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould and we have made orders for it to put things right. Complaint Ceiling Finding Service failure The resident’s concerns about the finding of asbestos materials within his home are understandable. It is not our role to investigate the level of asbestos or the risks involved, but to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.

The presence of materials containing asbestos in a home does not automatically constitute disrepair or place a repair obligation on the landlord. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 state that if existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place. Their condition should be monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed. Additionally, the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety.

It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. These include asbestos. Under the HHSRS, the landlord must assess any current damage or potential fibre release. The landlord’s website says that if residents think there are materials that may contain asbestos in their home which are damaged or in a poor condition, they should contact it. The landlord commissioned an asbestos survey for the property in 2023. This determined that most of the textured ceiling coatings in the property contained a form of asbestos but this was a very low risk.

The surveyor noted that they could not access the bathroom at the time of the survey but presumed that the coating on the ceiling in this room would be likely to contain asbestos also. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord that a section of the ceiling in the bathroom had collapsed on 28 July 2025. At the same time, he told the landlord that a contractor that previously attended the property said that they thought the ceilings coatings would contain asbestos.

We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns directly until it provided a stage 2 complaint response on 7 October 2025. This lack of communication caused the resident further distress because he was unaware of the risk level involved. On 24 September 2025, 2 months after the resident reported the issue, the landlord asked a specialist contractor to remove the bathroom ceiling. This delay was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and we have seen no evidence that it updated the resident during this time despite him spending further time and trouble contacting it for an update 3 more times.

The specialist contractor emailed the resident on 29 September 2025. It told him that it would attend on 25 October 2025 to remove the ceiling and would reinstate it on 29 and 30 October 2025. It said that it may ask the resident to leave the property for safety reasons. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to express his concerns about leaving the property and to request temporary accommodation. The landlord contacted the contractor who explained that a decant would not be necessary as the removal element of the repair would only take a few hours during which time the household may or may not be asked to leave.

The contractor said that it had explained this to the resident on the telephone. The landlord explained this in writing to the resident on 7 October 2025 in the stage 2 complaint response. However, the resident told it that he did not want the work done unless it provided the household with temporary accommodation for 3 days. The landlord asked a resident liaison officer to help communicate with the resident to try to reassure him that he could safely use the shower everyday while the work was underway, but he was not reassured by this and the work remains outstanding.

The landlord acted reasonably in taking the advice of the specialist contractor and we have seen evidence that they advised the landlord that the removal work would only take a few hours, during which time the household may need to leave the property. There is evidence that the landlord explained this in writing and on the telephone which was appropriate. The landlord has told the resident that the contractor will rearrange the work if he allows access. Following the resident declining the work, the landlord should have considered arranging another asbestos survey of the bathroom to assess the new risk posed now that the ceiling was damaged.

However, we have seen no evidence that it has done so. This failure means that the landlord is unaware of the ongoing risk within the property and whether it should take further action to resolve the issue as a matter of urgency. In summary, the landlord did not communicate well with the resident when he first reported the issue. There was a delay in it instructing a contractor to remove the ceiling and it did not keep the resident informed about this. However, it was reasonable for it to consider the specialist contractors advice that the bathroom would only be inaccessible for approximately 3 hours and therefore not to offer temporary accommodation, especially considering that there is another toilet within the property.

Following the resident declining the work it has not re-assessed the risk posed. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the replacement of a ceiling containing asbestos. Complaint Complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs more than 10 working days to respond to the complaint, it says it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response.

This is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. In this case the landlord took 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint and a further 21 working days to provide a full response. It did not contact the resident to extend the timescale until after the response was due. This delay and failure to follow its own policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused frustration. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.

The landlord’s complaint policy also says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs longer, it says it will explain why, inform the resident of the new expected timescale, and respond within the extended timeframe. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that any extension should be no more than 20 working days without good reason. In this case the landlord took 20 working days to acknowledge the complaint and only did so when the resident took time and trouble to chase it up.

It then took another 51 working days to provide a response. During this time the resident contacted it several more times. The landlord let the resident to know that it was extending the timeframe but did not keep to the new timeframe and extended a further 2 times. This unacceptable delay caused him further distress and frustration. It also further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service. Despite the extra time taken to provide a stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not respond to all the complaints raised by the resident.

It did not mention the damp and mould situation at all or give any insight into the cause of the issue. This error cost the resident further time and trouble contacting us to request an investigation and meant that the landlord failed to use the complaints process to put things right. In summary, there were long delays and the landlord did not use the complaint handling process to put things right. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 at stage 2 of the process for complaint handling failures.

However, we do not think this reflects the time, trouble, and distress caused. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £150 compensation for this element of the complaint. Learning The landlord should review this case to see why it did not deal with the report of damp and mould in line with its procedure. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord provided incomplete records for contractor visits. For example, we are only aware that another contractor visited the property on 22 July 2025 because the resident included this information in an email.

Communication As demonstrated in the findings above the landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident about the repairs and the complaint.