From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Great Places Housing Association (202301430)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301430

Great Places Housing Association

23 September 2025

 

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 reports of:
    1. A leak in the kitchen and associated damage to his laminate flooring.
    2. His request to have an area of his back garden paved.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow with a private garden. He lives alone and the tenancy started in 2015. The resident is a veteran and has multiple diagnosed health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. These include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mobility difficulties.
  2. On 17 and 20 September 2024 the resident reported a leak in his kitchen, which he said had damaged his laminate flooring in the kitchen and living areas. He also said his lawn needed resurfacing. On 20 September 2024 the landlord raised a job to inspect the leak. It also told the resident that it could not assist with the lawn.
  3. On 25 October 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint, via this Service. He said he wanted his lawn resurfaced. He also complained about the leak in the kitchen, which he said had damaged his laminate flooring.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 November 2024. It said:
    1. On 20 September 2024, it had logged a repair to locate and repair the leak. Its repairs supervisor could not find any leaks during their visit and inspection on 25 September 2024. They noted a small section of damaged laminate flooring. It was “not evident that the section of damage was caused by a leak.” It had also sent a plumber round to inspect but the resident had not been home and had not answered his telephone. It had also found no reports of leaks in the kitchen prior to his report of 20 September 2024.
    2. During the visit of 25 September 2024, it had explained that the upkeep of the lawn was the resident’s responsibility, as per the tenancy agreement.
  5. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 13 November 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 6 January 2025. It said:
    1. It reiterated that the resident was responsible for the maintenance of his private garden, as per the tenancy agreement. As a gesture of goodwill, it had agreed to remove the old shed and decking from the resident’s garden (fitted by the previous tenant). These works were completed on 2 December 2024. The operatives had also helped the resident to move his new shed into place.
    2. It had investigated the resident’s reports of a leak in September 2024 and again on 2 December 2024. It could find no evidence of a leak.
    3. Its staff had followed its policies and procedures, so it had found no service failure.
    4. It appreciated the challenges that veterans faced and was investigating staff awareness training. It was also investigating working in partnership with SSAFA (Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Families Association) in the future.
  7. The resident approached this Service on 9 January 2025. He said the leak was no longer an issue. He said he wanted the landlord to replace his laminate flooring, and for the landlord to pave an area of lawn where the decking used to be.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak in the kitchen and subsequent damage to laminate flooring

  1. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building as per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes water installations, pipework, and drainage.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for all internal decorations. Residents are also responsible for all laminate flooring and carpets that they have had fitted. This includes the installation and removal.
  3. The policy goes on to say that the landlord has property and public liability insurance. In the event of a major incident, such as flooding, its insurance will cover structural damage and resulting repairs. It does not cover damage to contents. It strongly recommends residents take out “suitable cover” to protect their personal belongings.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours (to make safe) and it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  5. The resident first reported the leak on 17 September 2024, and the landlord raised a job to inspect the leak on 20 September 2024. The records show that it attempted to inspect the leak on 24 September 2024, but the resident was not home. It also tried to call the resident on this date. This was reasonable and shows that the landlord attempted to resolve the issue for the resident in a timely manner. As the leak was not ongoing, it was reasonable that the landlord attempted to resolve this within its 20-working day timescale.
  6. Its repairs inspector attended again on 25 September 2024. It inspected the kitchen and could find no evidence of a leak. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. It also made an appointment for a plumber to attend on 1 October 2024, which was further reasonable. This shows that it adopted an inquisitorial approach, which was resident focussed. When the resident was not home to allow access, it left a card to contact it to rearrange the appointment. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was trying to resolve the issue for the resident. It was also willing to be flexible to accommodate an alternative appointment.
  7. The resident requested that the plumber appointment be changed to 2 December 2024, so it was reasonable that the landlord attended again on this date. Although this was outside of the 20-working day timescale, this was at the resident’s request, and the landlord had initially attended on 25 September 2024 and attempted to attend on 1 October 2024. It inspected the kitchen again for a leak and found no evidence of this. This shows that it was thorough in its approach and this was appropriate.
  8. Additionally, the records show that in September 2024 and on 2 December 2024, the landlord advised the resident that he could claim on his own insurance where necessary. This is appropriate and in line with its policy.
  9. It is not within the scope of this Service to determine the causation of the damage to the floor. Instead, we have investigated the landlord’s actions and whether it followed its policies appropriately. It is not evident that any leak was reported prior to 17 September 2024. Given its timely action, and the lack of evidence of a leak, it was reasonable that it held the position that it was not responsible for the leak damaging the laminate floor.
  10. Further, the landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for their own laminate flooring. So, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to replace this, when there is no evidence that its actions contributed to any damage. The resident may wish to pursue this with his contents insurance provider, who are in a position to establish liability.
  11. The landlord also demonstrated a positive attitude to resident focus and individual needs when it advised the resident it was looking into staff training on the challenges faced by veterans. It also said it would look at working with SSAFA.
  12. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in a timely manner, and within its policy timescales. It inspected the kitchen on 2 occasions and found no evidence of a leak. As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Request to have a section of the back garden paved

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for the maintenance of gardens and landscaped areas where they have exclusive use of the garden.
  2. The policy also states that it considers the impact on individual needs when carrying out repairs.
  3. It was appropriate and in line with its policy, when the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for the maintenance of his private garden.
  4. Also, the landlord did consider the resident’s individual needs. The records show that it went beyond its obligations. On 2 December 2024 it removed the old shed and decking (installed by a previous tenant), disposed of it at its own cost, levelled the area, and helped the resident to instal his own shed. This was resident focussed and demonstrated a willingness to go beyond its obligations and accommodate the resident’s needs.
  5. As the landlord followed its policy, communicated its position effectively, and went beyond its obligations, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen and associated damage to his laminate flooring.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have an area of the back garden paved.