Midland Heart Limited (202329261)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329261

Midland Heart Limited

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for the advanced rent payment to be refunded.
3. Request for written correspondence.
4. Reports of a sewage smell.
5. Reports of repairs to the extractor fan.
6. Reports of black sludge from the taps.
7. Request for permission to install an electric vehicle (EV) charging point at the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She moved into the new build which is a 1-bedroomed ground floor flat on 3 December 2021. The landlord’s records confirm the resident’s mobility conditions.
The resident reported a repair for the extractor fan on 14 December 2021. The issue was also raised during the end of defect inspection on 24 November 2022.
On 2 March 2022 the resident reported a sewage smell in the bathroom. On 7 July 2022 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding the issue. The landlord confirmed the developer was sending its ground workers to investigate the issue. The MP reported the issue again on 3 November 2022 and the landlord asked the contractor to attend and arrange a CCTV survey. The outcome of the survey was not provided as evidence. On 4 November 2022 the resident reported black sludge coming from the taps in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord asked the developer to address the issue.
The resident reported ASB from neighbours on 8 July 2022 and 26 August 2022. This included allegations of verbal assaults and shining car headlights into her flat. The landlord visited the resident, and the neighbours identified and sent warning letters. It liaised with the police and requested patrols of the area but said there was not enough evidence to take any further action.
On 25 September 2023 the resident asked for permission to install an EV charging point at her property. The landlord posted the form the following day, and although the resident chased progress, the landlord said it did not receive the resident’s completed form.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 20 September 2023. She was unhappy with:
1. the landlord contacting her by telephone when she had asked for post only
2. the handing of ASB from neighbours
3. the sewage smell in her property
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023. In summary, it said:
1. it was sorry for not activating the contact preference sooner, advised this had been done, and confirmed it would only call her in an emergency
2. it had asked the resident for evidence of the alleged harassment from neighbours, but as this was not provided, no follow up action was taken
3. it advised the reports relating to the wheelie bins and shining of headlights were not classed as ASB so it would not get involved
4. it had responded to reports of the sewage smell, the developer had found no faults, it assured the resident there was no cesspit and advised her to contact the water company as it did not attend to external drainage issues
5. it was sorry for the delay in repairing the extractor fan in the kitchen and said it had asked the developer to rectify the problem
6. it would investigate the additional issues reported (sludge from taps) and asked the resident for dates when it could visit
7. the advanced rent payment was in line with the Tenancy Agreement (TA) so would not be refunded
8. it partially upheld the complaint due to the delays in resolving the defects, and on completion of the repairs it would award compensation
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint regarding the EV charging point on 3 November 2023. She was unhappy with the time taken.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response regarding the EV charging point on 30 November 2023. It said:
1. the request was made on 25 September 2023, it posted the form the following day, but it did not receive a completed form
2. it had declined the request on 1 November 2023 advising at that time it was unable to install EV chargers on flats due to the power supply running through a communal area
It is not known when the resident escalated the complaint regarding the repairs, rent refund and ASB, however the landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 December 2023. In summary, it said:
1. the rent payment was a clause in the TA, and it would not refund the payment until the end of the tenancy if there were sufficient funds at that time
2. the sewage smell had been reported several times since March 2022, it had inspected the drains, completed drain surveys, and had told the resident to contact the water company as there were no faults with the drainage running through the property
3. it had overhauled the taps on 27 November 2023 to remove the build-up of sediment and to remove the smell
4. it had added the resident to the “do not contact” list to stop unwanted messages, and it would write to the resident with any updates, but it would keep her number in case urgent contact was needed
5. the extractor fan fault was raised in December 2021 and completed on 28 November 2023, it said the time taken was unacceptable and offered a sincere apology
6. it had investigated the allegations of the shining of headlights and moving of wheelie bins, but it was unable to prove any malicious intent, however it acknowledged that it should have offered restorative justice to the parties involved sooner
7. it partially upheld the complaint and offered a total of £1100 compensation (£750 for the delay in repairing the fan, £300 for the not offering restorative justice sooner, and £50 for the late complaint response)
The resident escalated her complaint regarding the EV charging point on 11 December 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded. The resident contacted us on 1 February 2024 for support in escalating her complaint. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The landlord provided its final complaint response regarding the EV charger on 1 March 2024. The landlord:
1. repeated its initial complaint response and apologised for not providing its decision sooner, and for the time spent chasing a response
2. said an administration error had caused the delay in the complaint being escalated, and advised it had been addressed with the team
3. offered a total of 150 compensation (£100 for the complaint handling, and £50 for the delays in providing its decision regarding the EV request)
The resident referred her complaint to us on 7 March 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to all her issues. As a resolution she asked for the landlord:
1. to complete the outstanding repairs
2. to allow permission for the installation of an EV charging point
3. to refund the first weeks rent
4. to act on the ASB from neighbours

Assessment and findings

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.
The resident has raised other concerns, including a stock condition survey and a request for CCTV. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the issues raised by the resident, which includes an assessment of its final response. As these issues were raised after the final complaint response we are unable to investigate them. This report will only focus on the issues highlighted in the complaint definition, because these are what the landlord has addressed in its complaint response. The assessment will not consider events that occurred after the final complaint response on 1 March 2024.

Relevant policies, procedures, and agreements

The resident’s TA states:
1. the payment for the first period will be a pro-rata amount of the total weekly charge and is due on the start date and the total weekly charge for the second and subsequent periods will then be due weekly in advance and is payable on a Monday
2. the landlord is responsible for repairs including electricity; sanitation, and drains, but no other fixtures, fittings, and appliance for making use of the supply of water
The landlord’s New Home Guide states a 12-month warranty (defect period) starts from the handover date. The developer is responsible for repairing certain items in the first year, but some non-urgent repairs will only be completed at the end of the defects period.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states:
1. it needs evidence to intervene, and tenants have a responsibility to support with this
2. incidents of neighbour disputes will not be investigated as it expects residents to resolve these themselves, it will inform all parties if the issue is considered ASB, and will take a reasonable and proportionate approach when using legal and non-legal interventions
3. it will complete a risk assessment to determine the priority, agree an action plan, and its initial response will provide advice on how to find a solution without its direct intervention
4. officers may use a wide range of methods to tackle ASB which could include speaking to the subject and partnership working
5. it will close a case if it has taken all available action or no evidence has been provided to prove that incidents of ASB have occurred
The landlord’s website states it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s EV Charging Policy states residents need its approval to undertake an EV charger installation, and once a request has been submitted it will carry out a survey to evaluate suitability. The Electric Vehicle Charge Points specification states the minimum specification is for charge points to be approved for people living in rented properties with its own driveway.
The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
1. a complaint does not cover a request for a new service, for example ASB
2. it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days
3. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days, stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the receipt date, any extensions will be agreed with the resident and will be no more than 10-working days

Reports of ASB

It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
On 8 July 2022 the resident informed the landlord of 2 incidents of verbal assault from 2 different parties. She said one was about parking, one was a remark about her disability which left her upset and feeling vulnerable. The landlord completed a risk assessment and an action plan. It confirmed it did not get involved in parking disputes but advised it had sent a letter to the neighbour regarding the disability comments. The landlord offered the resident restorative justice, but this was declined. The landlord’s actions and responses were appropriate and in line with its policy.
On 26 August 2022, the resident reported a neighbour for shining car headlights into her flat. She said she wanted the neighbours evicted but the landlord advised that was not possible for the issues presented and further evidence would be needed to support a court case. In response, and over the following weeks, the landlord:
1. visited the resident to collect the footage she had recorded
2. visited the neighbour to discuss the allegations and sent the neighbour a warning letter which confirmed it would monitor the situation
3. liaised with police and offered to share the resident’s footage to help with an investigation
4. referred the resident to an Occupational Therapist and Adult Social Care for additional support
5. requested patrols of the area
On 20 October 2022 the landlord told the resident the neighbour had denied shining car headlights into the flat and said the car in the footage was not hers. It confirmed the patrols had not resulted in any reports of nuisance and as the cars could not be linked to the neighbour, it could not take any further action. On 3 March 2023 the landlord closed the ASB case as no further incidents had been reported and no further evidence. The landlord’s actions and responses were appropriate and in line with policy.
On 24 July 2023 the resident reported a neighbour for leaving bins under her window and playing loud music, and another for shining car headlights into her flat. The landlord advised the resident its actions were led by evidence. It confirmed it had sent warnings, conducted visits to the neighbours, but if the ASB was continuing it needed to be reported with evidence. The resident said it was “pointless.” The landlord said it would update and close the case as it needed evidence to support an investigation. This was in line with policy.
No further reports were received until 22 November 2023 when the resident said one neighbour was shining car headlights at her flat, and one had put a bin in the path of her car. The landlord confirmed its previous response. It advised the issues would not be classed as ASB and it was something the resident should be able to resolve by speaking to her neighbours. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The resident raised the management of the ASB in her complaint on 20 September 2023. In its final complaint response on 12 December 2023 the landlord confirmed it had investigated the reports made but it was unable to prove any malicious intent regarding headlights and bins. It acknowledged it should have offered restorative justice to the parties involved sooner than it did and offered £300 compensation in recognition of this.
Considering the above, we find reasonable redress. The landlord demonstrated it investigated the reports made by the resident, acknowledged the delayed offer of restorative justice, and took action that was in line with it policy. It liaised with the police and made support referrals on behalf of the resident. Its communication to the resident was timely and clear and set clear expectations as to what it could and could not do.

Request for the advanced rent payment to be refunded

On 21 July 2023 the resident told the landlord she had been told she would get the rent she had paid in advance back. However, she said it had then been classed as a deposit, and she was not going to get it back. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord had taken the payment as a deposit for the property, or that it would be refunded.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed it was policy for either one week or one month’s rent to be paid in advance of moving in. It said it was not refundable as all rent accounts must be a week in advance as stated in the TA. The landlord quoted the TA as confirmation. The resident escalated the issue, however the landlord’s final complaint response on 12 December 2023 confirmed its position and reasons to support this. The landlord advised it would not refund the payment until the end of the TA and only then if there were sufficient funds.
In summary, we find no maladministration. The landlord requested the payment as per the TA and provided its reasoning in its complaint responses. It was reasonable of the landlord to suggest refunding the payment at the end of the tenancy if there were funds available.

Request for written correspondence

On 28 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to remove her email from its records and to only use her number in emergencies. The resident asked for written contact. The landlord did as requested and confirmed this in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023 when it apologised for the delay in activating the request.
In its final complaint response on 12 December 2023 the landlord confirmed it had added her name to the “do not contact” list to stop unwanted messages. It advised it had stored her number for emergency contact only and would confirm any updates in writing. The landlord showed an understanding of the resident’s preferred method of communication, it updated its systems and confirmed its actions to the resident. This was reasonable. As such a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Reports of a sewage smell

The resident raised this issue on 2 March 2022. The landlord asked the resident for further information on 3 March 2022, and while the resident responded the same day, there is no evidence the landlord referred the issue to the developer. This was unreasonable.
On 7 and 13 July 2022, the landlord received an MP enquiry on behalf of the resident. On 27 July 2022 the landlord confirmed the developer was attending, and it was awaiting its findings. It said it would update the resident upon receipt of the developers findings, but there is no evidence it did. This was a communication failure. On 3 November 2022, the MP contacted the landlord again to advise other properties were affected and the smell was affecting the resident’s usage of the bathroom. It was unreasonable the resident had to involve her MP for progress to be made.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord asked a contractor to complete a CCTV survey within the next 1 to 2-working days. On 15 November 2022 the contractor confirmed it had instructed a sub-contractor to arrange a date and time with the resident. This was reasonable, but there is no evidence to confirm what the investigation concluded and if any repairs were completed. Further, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the findings to the resident. This is a record keeping failure which means we cannot assess if the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations.
There is no evidence of any further reports until 21 July 2023 when the resident told the landlord the smell was still an issue, and nothing was being done. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. This was not reasonable. The resident raised a complaint on 20 September 2023 and reported the issue again on 28 September 2023 when the landlord raised an emergency appointment.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023, the landlord said it had responded to all the reports made, the developer had attended, and no faults had been found. The developer confirmed the property was connected to the main sewerage system and the resident was told to contact the water company as it was not responsible for external drains. As the landlord had been informed multiple properties were affected, it would have been helpful to contact the water company directly to advise of the investigations completed to date. There is no evidence it did this.
The resident contacted the water company on 18 October 2023. It attended on 24 October 2023 but advised it would not be adopting the resident’s property or the surrounding properties until 2026 and until then, the landlord was responsible.
On 22 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident the developer had resolved the sewage smell. It said the gas pressure was building up and passing the shallow bath traps and allowing the smelly gas to build in the bathroom. The plumbers sealed behind the toilet to rule that out as a possible cause of the smell. The resident said the problem was with the bath, not the toilet, and the landlord was mixing up past events. It said it had asked its own contractor to investigate the issue and provide a report on the potential cause. There is no evidence to confirm when the property was inspected, the findings, or any communication to the resident. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of progress to finding a resolution.
In its final complaint response on 12 December 2023, the landlord said the problem had been raised several times, it had conducted inspections or completed surveys and had signposted the resident to the water company as no faults had been found with the drains. It acknowledged it should have escalated the issue sooner and apologised for the lack of communication. It is not clear if the sewage smell has been resolved. As such an order has been made to determine if this is a continuing issue.
Considering the above, we find maladministration. The time taken to address the problem was not appropriate and there was a lack of records to corroborate the landlord’s response. It was informed the smell was affecting the resident using the bathroom, but it only demonstrated an urgency when the MP got involved. It signposted the resident to the water board which is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged it took too long to escalate the issues and there was a lack of communication, yet it failed to offer any redress or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
An order has been made to pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident.

Reports of repairs to the extractor fan

The resident first raised a repair for the extractor fan on 14 December 2021. There is evidence of several chases from the resident from May 2022 through to October 2023, the involvement of an MP in July 2022 and an end of defect inspection in November 2022 when the issue was highlighted, but there is no evidence the repair was completed. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s repair timescales.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay. It acknowledged the resident had raised the issue previously, as well as it being highlighted in the end of defect inspection. It confirmed it had asked the developer to rectify the matter. The landlord requested the repair to be completed within 48 hours, but it was not repaired until 27 November 2023, nearly 2 years after it was first reported. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its repair timescales.
The landlord addressed the delay in repair in its final complaint response on 12 December 2023 when it acknowledged the time taken was unacceptable. It offered a sincere apology and confirmed feedback had been shared with the Defect Team to identify the learning. The landlord offered £750 for the delay and the inconvenience to the resident.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged the failings in terms of the delays in repairing the fan. It apologised and accepted accountability and confirmed it had addressed the matter with the Defect Team to highlight learning to prevent a recurrence. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident and where the redress needed to put things right is substantial. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Black sludge from the kitchen and bathroom taps

The resident provided the landlord with photographs of black sludge coming from the taps on 14 November 2022. The landlord confirmed the issue had been reported in May 2022, however there is no evidence to support this and no evidence the developer attended. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord provided evidence to confirm it referred the issue to the developer on 15 November 2022.This was reasonable. It contacted the resident on 23 November 2022 to confirm if the developer had attended and resolved the problem. There is no evidence of the developer’s attendance or findings and no response from the resident regarding the taps. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to follow up with the developer or resident to confirm if the issue had been resolved.
There is no evidence of any further contact about this issue until September 2023 when the resident raised a complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it would investigate the problem and asked the resident to provide dates and times when it could visit. An appointment was arranged to visit on 22 November 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with its repair timescales for a standard repair. The landlord confirmed it had bleached, soaked, and cleaned the diffusers which had resolved the problem. It told the resident she needed to clean the diffusers more often to stop the build-up of dirt.
The resident responded to the landlord on 22 November 2023. She maintained it was a design fault, and she should not have to take the taps apart to clean them, particularly with her health issues. She said the tap had a fault caused by the rubber being loose which caused the water to flow back into the tap and stagnate. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord until its final complaint response on 12 December 2023 when it confirmed it had overhauled the taps to remove the sediment. It would have been helpful for the landlord to offer to monitor the situation and if the problem continued, to seek alternative options available to prevent a recurrence. There is no evidence it did this.
In summary, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm it referred the issue when it was first reported in May 2022. There is no communication to the resident to confirm its actions and no evidence of the developers attending at that time. The developer did attend in November 2022 and cleaned the diffuser and passed the maintenance of the cleaning to the resident. While this was in line with the resident responsibility, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about taking the taps apart or consider her health and if she would be able to do as it had asked. This was a shortcoming and led to the resident spending time and effort pursing updates. As such and due to the time it took to repair the taps, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
An order has been made to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure where there was a minimal failure by the landlord in the service it provided which it did not acknowledge or fully attempt to put them right.

Request for permission to install an EV charging point at the property

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 September 2023 to request permission to install an EV charging point. The landlord sent the resident the request forms the following day. This was reasonable. On 13 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update, but it said it had not received the completed form.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2023 regarding the time taken. In its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2023 the landlord confirmed it had written to the resident with its decision on 1 November 2023. A copy of the letter was not provided as evidence. The landlord said it had declined the request as it was unable at that time, to install EV charges on flats due to the power supply running through a communal area. This was reasonable. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said there was no service failure in relation to the request or a lack of communication.
The landlord received a further request on 4 December 2023. Its internal notes state it had told the resident the request had been declined as she did not have a dedicated driveway, however there is no evidence of this communication to the resident. Further, in the landlord’s final complaint response on 1 March 2024 it repeated its initial response regarding the communal power supply. It did not refer to the dedicated driveway as an additional reason. This was a shortcoming as it would have supported its decision-making process.
The landlord’s response was in line with its policy and specification document. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain the adverse effect on the other resident’s in the block should the charger be installed. The landlord apologised for the resident having to chase updates and in acknowledgement of the delay in providing a decision, it offered £50 compensation.
In summary the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for a paper copy of the form. It took the opportunity in its final complaint response to acknowledge the delay in responding to the resident which led her to spending time and effort pursing updates and agreed to learn from its service failure. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance for a minor service failure over a short duration and where the landlord has acknowledged this and attempted to put them right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint regarding the rent refund, repairs, contact preference and ASB on 20 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 21 September 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint regarding the EV installation request on 3 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of this complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2023, 19 days after the complaint was made. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
The resident escalated her initial complaint issues, however there is no evidence of the request, or the acknowledgment from the landlord. This is a record keeping failure. It provided its final complaint response for these issues on 12 December 2023, however due to the lack of evidence, we cannot assess if the landlord responded in line with its policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident contacted us on 1 February 2024. She said she had escalated her complaint about the EV charging point on 11 December 2023 but had not received a response. We asked the landlord to contact the resident to respond to her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint with the resident on 10 February 2024. It apologised for the delay and advised it would respond no later than 29 February 2024. It provided its final complaint response on 1 March 2024, 56 days after the initial request. It apologised for the administration error which meant the resident’s escalation request had not been uploaded. It said it had addressed this with the complaint team to prevent a recurrence and offered £150 in acknowledgement of the delays and inconvenience. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation matrix.
In summary, the landlord’s responses were delayed and not in line with policy. However, it acknowledged and explained the delays and addressed these with the appropriate team to prevent them happening again. It apologised for the delays, addressed the concerns raised and offered compensation that was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged the failures and tried to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a sewage smell.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of sludge from the taps.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of ASB
2. response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the extractor fan
3. response to the resident’s request for permission to install an EV charging point at the property
4. complaint handling
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request:
1. for the advanced rent payment to be refunded
2. for written correspondence

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
2. paid the resident a total of £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving the sewage smell
  1. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
  2. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
3. contacted the resident to determine if the sewage smell is still an issue, and if it is, agreed a way forward to find the root cause

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1250 that was offered within its final complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the following failures is made on the basis this compensation is paid:
1. reports of ASB
2. repairs to the extractor fan
3. request for permission to install an EV charging point
4. complaint handling
The landlord should contact the resident to see if the problem with the black sludge is continuing. If so, it should consider the options available to prevent the problem from recurring.