From 13 January 2026, we 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.

Plexus UK (First Project) Limited (202303220)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303220

Plexus UK (First Project) Limited

28 May 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. Concerns about her energy bills, rent account, and other tenancy issues.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. She lived in the property from February 2023 until September 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat. It is located in a terrace. The resident moved there due to damp and mould in her previous home with the landlord. She lived with her partner and young son. Her partner is disabled. In September 2024 the resident moved to another of the landlord’s properties.
  2. Soon after she moved to the property, the resident reported several leaks. The landlord responded to her reports. Subsequently, in March 2023, she reported that the property had “major repair issues” which included “severe mould”. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction later that month. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this stage. The resident approached the Ombudsman in April 2023. Our intervention prompted the landlord to raise a formal complaint for the resident. It also inspected the property several days later. It said leaks had caused damage to the property, but there were no damp or mould issues.
  3. In May 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It awarded the resident £300 in compensation due to its handling of the leaks. It also said it would complete various repairs. The resident asked it to escalate her complaint soon afterwards. She said several issues were still ongoing. The landlord declined her request. It said it was trying to arrange repairs. This prompted the resident to contact us again. Subsequently, the landlord found that part of the property was still damp after it had completed some repairs. It suspected another leak.
  4. Following our intervention, the landlord issued an initial stage 2 response in July 2023. It said it would investigate the damp and complete further repairs. It subsequently issued a further stage 2 response in September 2023. At this point, it awarded the resident an additional £450 in compensation. This was based on the time it had taken to resolve matters. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. She felt the property had an underlying damp issue. She later made another complaint to the landlord which referenced damp.
  5. The landlord issued some related responses in 2024. It suspected that a neighbouring property could be the source of the damp. It did not identify any additional failures or award further compensation. Subsequently, the parties updated the Ombudsman in May 2025. The landlord told us it had rectified a damp issue after the resident moved out. The resident told us she felt it had ignored her related concerns and “talked down” to her. She said there were various issues with the property and each of her homes with the landlord had damp issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and her family. The evidence supports some of her concerns about the property’s condition. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal items.
  2. In her recent update, the resident told the Ombudsman there were repair issues in her new home. It is unclear if she has complained to the landlord about these. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to our involvement. We also need sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of any complaint points. In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, we have focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint (involving leaks and damp) from March 2023. This is the case that she has brought to the Ombudsman. Unless otherwise stated, any other complaint issues are out of scope for this report. The resident may bring any further complaints to us for separate investigation once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould

  1. Prior to the resident’s tenancy, the property was unoccupied for a time. The landlord completed numerous repairs during this void period. It has supplied various records of these works. The evidence shows it spent more than £5,000 in total. It is acknowledged this was a significant amount of investment from the landlord. However, the evidence points to problems with its void processes.
  2. The landlord’s void records include a repair record from November 2022. In it, the landlord said a leak was affecting some walls in a bedroom and a hallway. It also said the leak should be found before the walls were repaired. In addition, it said the water damage could relate to rising damp and a damp survey was required. Contrary to this recommendation, there is no indication the landlord arranged a damp survey at this stage. This is concerning in the circumstances. It is noted that damp (and mould) can have potential health implications.
  3. In a record on 30 January 2023, the landlord said it had applied “multiple layers of stain block” to the (unspecified) “areas of water marks”. In another record that seems to be from 3 February 2023, it said “the only damp [it had] identified was a wet patch in [a] bedroom”. The evidence suggests it had not identified the source of the leak and/or damp. It is reasonable to conclude that the damp survey was requested by a professional operative. The landlord has not explained why it did not arrange one. Without a strong reason to support taking a different course of action, it should have complied with the operative’s recommendation. The landlord’s approach was inappropriate. Subsequent events show the resident was adversely impacted by persistent damp issues.
  4. The resident moved to the property around 20 February 2023. On 22 February 2023 she reported the boiler was leaking. Records show the landlord arranged an emergency repair but the resident cancelled it. This was on the basis it was late and she wanted to sleep. The resident made a further report 2 days later. She said the bath water was cold and her partner needed to bathe. Its internal notes show the landlord raised an emergency repair appointment. However, the landlord accepts that it did not attend the property until 27 February 2023. Its residents’ handbook confirms it should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord was responsible for an inappropriate delay at this point.
  5. The landlord said that, when it did attend the repair on 27 February 2023, it found the property had hot water but the bath taps had been labelled incorrectly. It also said it found a condensation pipe was leaking into a cupboard and needed to be replaced. The resident has not disputed this version of events. Subsequently, she called the landlord on 1 March 2023 because the pipe was still leaking. It is reasonable to conclude this call was both avoidable and inconvenient for her. The evidence suggests the landlord attended the property on the same day and completed a temporary repair. The parties agree its temporary repair subsequently failed on 10 March 2023. The resident said this caused her kitchen to flood. The landlord has disputed this assertion. From the evidence provided, we are unable to establish if a flood occurred. However, the above shows the landlord failed to arrange follow-up repairs on at least 1 occasion. This was unreasonable and the resident was inconvenienced.
  6. On 10 March 2023 the parties discussed the property’s condition. The landlord’s call notes said the resident was “not happy”. They also said she felt the property had some “major [repair] issues”. They show she reported a large crack on the kitchen wall, “severe mould”, a rotten bath panel, and a pipe that was leaking onto the property’s electrics. The evidence suggests the landlord attended the property on the same date to make the leak safe. This was an appropriate timescale in the circumstances.
  7. Subsequent records show the landlord replaced a section of the condensation pipe on 21 March 2023. This was around 16 working days after its operative had discovered the leak. Given the leaking pipework was near to the electrics, the landlord could have reasonably expedited the works. This timeframe is further evidence that it failed to follow up some important repair issues promptly. Its lack of urgency may have caused some additional distress for the resident.
  8. On 31 March 2023 the resident reported another leak. The landlord’s contact records said she had called to complain about the quality of its previous pipe repair. There is no indication the landlord raised a formal complaint at this point. We will consider its complaint handling in the relevant section below. Repair records indicate it attended the property on the same date and contained the leak. It made further visits on 2 and 4 April 2023. On the latter date, it replaced more pipework and completed some testing. There is no indication it should have treated the follow-up works as an urgent repair. However, its repeated visits to the property likely caused some inconvenience for the resident.
  9. On 24 April 2023 the landlord completed some electrical works. Its repair notes said the property was “very damp”. They also said “the problem is not helped as there is no heating on and clothes are being dried inside”. The resident approached the Ombudsman around the same time. Her main complaint related to damp and mould in the property. We notified the landlord about her concerns on the next day. The resident also contacted the landlord on 25 April 2023. She reported that a pipe in the bathroom had burst. Records show the landlord attended an emergency appointment to make the situation safe. Overall, the evidence shows around 4 leaks occurred within a short period after the resident moved to the property. This is a concerning amount of leaks. It is likely that the situation was distressing for the resident and her family.
  10. The landlord inspected the property on 28 April 2023. It has not supplied a copy of its inspection report. This is concerning. In related internal correspondence, it said there was evidence of damage relating to leaks. However, it said it had not found any damp or mould issues during the inspection. The resident called the landlord on the next day. She said there was a hole in the bathroom floor where it had repaired some pipework. She also said she was waiting for the hole to be repaired, and her son had tripped and fallen over it. In contrast, the landlord’s call notes said it had covered the hole and left the floor in a “safe state”. From the information provided, the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this version of events. This is concerning and the above points to record keeping failures.
  11. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 May 2023. It apologised for the series of leaks. It accepted that it was responsible for delays and it had not progressed the follow-up works promptly. It awarded the resident £300 in related compensation. It said the damage was “confined to the bathroom, hallway, and adjoining wall from the bedroom to the bathroom”. It disputed that there was any mould in the property. The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. It had resolved leaks from a condensation pipe, and a pipe to the bathroom radiator. It would repair the related damage on 18 May 2023.
    2. Its repairs would include a replacement sub-floor, a new bathroom floor, laminate flooring in the hallway, skirting, pipe boxing, and a new bath panel.
    3. It had identified other issues during its inspection. It would complete additional repairs to address these. These works included the installation of extractor fans, an adjustment to the front door, and a replacement stop tap.
    4. It had no record of a flood in the property’s kitchen.
    5. It had shared the resident’s concerns about quality issues with its contractor (the landlord did not say whether it agreed with these or not). It would monitor the contractor’s performance.
    6. It would monitor the resident’s complaint until the repairs were complete.
  12. In relation to the leaks, the landlord identified its key delays and failures in its response. It rightly acknowledged the significant impact to the resident. It awarded her some compensation to address this. It also gave feedback to its contractor. These were reasonable and proportionate steps. It was positive that the landlord agreed to complete some additional works. However, the requirement for these works raises further questions about its void processes.
  13. On 11 May 2023, the resident reported an ant infestation. She wanted the landlord to arrange pest control works. She updated the Ombudsman soon afterwards. She said the infestation had occurred because the landlord had not repaired the bathroom floor yet. She also said it had declined to arrange any treatment works. The landlord’s residents’ handbook says residents are responsible for treating pests. However, it also says the landlord may be able to help if pests are entering a property due to structural issues. In this case, there is a lack of evidence to show the ants were linked to an outstanding floor repair.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023. She said her son had “been hurt” because it had not completed the repairs promptly. There is no indication the landlord engaged with these important comments. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for an injury, health impacts, or damage to personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. There is no indication the landlord did this. This was inappropriate. Since insurance claims can be time-sensitive, it was also unfair. It is noted the landlord may have previously overlooked similar comments from the resident (about her son falling over). This indicates there may be a wider problem with its approach to liability claims.
  15. On 17 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said there were multiple ongoing issues which it had not addressed. She also referenced the ant infestation. The landlord declined her request. It said it was arranging repairs and the ants were her responsibility. Around a week later, it attended the property to complete some repair works. Its notes said a small area of the bathroom was still damp despite its previous repairs. It suspected there may be another leak. It said further appointments were needed to address the issue. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events subsequently occurred between 1 June and 20 September 2023:
    1. The landlord asked the resident if its supervisor could inspect the property. The resident replied it had already been inspected. She said there were “untold issues with [it] and … I don’t believe anyone should have been moved here without the correct works being done”. She reiterated that repairs were outstanding.
    2. The landlord was unable to access the property to repair a bedroom wall.
    3. The landlord postponed a repair appointment due to staff sickness.
    4. After an intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord decided to escalate the resident’s complaint.
    5. The landlord completed further works to the property. On the same date, the resident reported an ongoing leak. She said it was “under the ground making its way up my walls”. She felt repairs had not been completed correctly.
    6. On 26 July 2023 the landlord issued an initial response at stage 2. It said it had largely completed its initial list of works. It also said it needed to investigate further as the bathroom and a nearby wall were still damp.
    7. The landlord completed further repairs. The evidence suggests it removed part of the bathroom floor again to address some pipework.
    8. The resident updated the landlord on 15 August 2023. She said the bedroom wall had deteriorated following its recent damp works. She felt the property had a wider damp problem that needed to be investigated.
    9. The landlord updated the Ombudsman. It said repairs had been delayed by resourcing issues and the resident’s availability. The evidence supports this assertion.
    10. During internal correspondence, the landlord said it should award the resident more compensation. It also said “the quality of the work hasn’t been there”. It said it had visited the property on 2 occasions and found that “corners [had] been cut”.
  16. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. With reference to a recent visit, it said it found that the bathroom flooring had not been reinstated correctly. It also said there were signs of water damage in the hallway and bedroom. It promised to replace the whole bathroom floor. It said it would also complete other works. These included stain blocking across an entire wall in the bedroom. It felt its identified works would resolve any damp issues. It said it would support the resident until the repairs were complete. It awarded her an additional £450 in compensation (it is not entirely clear from the landlord’s wording but this may have been in the form of decorating vouchers). The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. The parties had discussed the ants during a recent meeting. The landlord felt they were a seasonal problem and did not relate to the bathroom flooring. The resident had not reported any further infestation issues.
    2. It was responsible for a short delay in arranging the final repairs. The problem occurred because it had restructured its repairs service recently.
    3. It had awarded more compensation due to the time it had taken to resolve the leaks and damp issues. It reiterated that it had also completed some works that did not relate to the resident’s complaint.
  17. Again, the landlord identified some of its key delays and failures at this point. It acknowledged the impact to the resident and took steps to put things right for her. This was a positive approach. However, it did not acknowledge that it had overlooked its operative’s request for a damp survey during the void period. The evidence shows this was a crucial failure in this case. It is noted that the resident’s reports had frequently referenced an underlying damp issue. Similarly, we note that some of her comments specifically pointed to rising damp. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord missed further opportunities to arrange a damp survey around this time. Later, the resident told us she felt it had dismissed her related concerns and “talked down” to her about these.
  18. The evidence suggests that the following events subsequently occurred between 27 October 2023 and 5 March 2024:
    1. The landlord completed various repairs. These included fitting new flooring and completing a mould wash in a hallway. Related records said the resident had declined mould washing works behind a bedroom cupboard.
    2. The resident updated the Ombudsman. She was unhappy with the quality of the landlord’s repairs. She said her belongings had been “covered in glue”. She also said she was “not impressed with the corners that [had] been cut just to get the job done”. It is noted the landlord had made a similar comment about “cut corners” previously.
    3. The landlord closed a repair order on the basis the resident had declined works when its operative arrived at the property.
    4. At the landlord’s request, a pest contractor inspected the property for silverfish. It said no silverfish were seen during the inspection and the property did not “appear to be damp or humid”. It is noted that silverfish can be linked to damp.
    5. The landlord raised a repair order. It said rising damp and mould could be coming from the property next door (owned by a different landlord).
    6. The landlord was unable to access the property to complete some repairs.
    7. The resident reported a further leak from the boiler and the landlord arranged some testing.
    8. The resident raised another complaint with the landlord. We have not seen a copy of this. Subsequent events confirm it referenced damp issues.
  19. On 8 March 2024 the landlord issued a formal complaint update to the resident. It disputed that skirting boards (presumably in the bathroom and/or hallway) were rotten. Instead, it said it suspected that the area was wet due to the resident’s “overuse of water”. It said she was responsible for the flooring and it would not replace the same flooring again. It also said it was liaising with the neighbouring property’s landlord about damp on the property’s bedroom wall. Subsequently, the landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 19 March 2024. It said it would complete various additional repairs. These largely related to the bathroom. The works included repairs to address a loose overflow, and a bath panel. The landlord did not award any compensation at this point.
  20. The landlord has not explained its comments about the resident’s “overuse” of water. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support these. The information we have seen points to an underlying damp issue. The landlord was aware of an unresolved problem at this stage. It was liaising with the neighbouring property’s landlord about it. In the circumstances, it was unreasonable to blame the resident for any water damage that occurred near the same area without strong supporting evidence. It was also unfair. The landlord’s approach may have added to the resident’s overall distress. Its correspondence may also have caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
  21. There is a gap in the evidence following the landlord’s correspondence in March 2024. It lasts for several months. The resident escalated her second complaint during this period. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. It said it had completed several repairs and investigations relating to leaks and damp. It also said that, as the resident had raised these issues again, it would obtain an independent survey. The landlord did not award the resident any compensation at this point. It is noted that, based on the period between November 2022 and August 2024, it took the landlord around 29 months to arrange a specialist survey. The evidence shows that, during the interim period, it completed a number of repairs that were subsequently damaged. It is likely this was both avoidable and costly.
  22. The parties updated the Ombudsman in May 2025. The landlord said it had moved the resident in September 2024. It also said it had fully resolved the damp issue (the landlord did not specify what this was) when the property became void again. The resident agreed that damp issues were ongoing when she moved out. She reiterated that there were various problems with the property while she lived there. She referenced defective windows and plug sockets that were wet with damp. She felt the landlord often “covered over” underlying repair issues. She also said there were a number of repair issues in her new home. It is understood that she wants the landlord to move her again.
  23. In total, the landlord awarded the resident £750 in compensation for the reported repair issues (£300 + £450). While this was a significant figure, it only related to delays and failures that occurred between February and September 2023. In contrast, the resident experienced avoidable damp issues for around 19 months between February 2023 and September 2024. During this period, there was recurring water damage to the property’s bedroom, hallway, and bathroom. From the available evidence, it was difficult to gauge the severity of the problem at times. However, given its extent and duration, it is reasonable to conclude that it reduced the resident’s overall enjoyment of the property.
  24. Ultimately, the landlord has not acknowledged the full extent of its failures or the corresponding impact to the resident. As a result, it has not done enough to put things right for her. It took a significant risk when it moved the resident to a property with undiagnosed leaks and/or damp problems. It subsequently overlooked her concerns about an underlying damp issue several times. Later, it blamed her for water damage that occurred near the same area as the damp problem. There is no indication that it engaged appropriately with her concerns about an injury that she held the landlord responsible for. The evidence suggests its dismissive approach added to her distress. Overall, we find there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  25. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Though the approach has been applied in a different way, it is also consistent with the landlord’s relevant compensation policy. This policy shows it can award a significant amount of discretionary compensation for serious failures which took considerable time and effort to resolve, and had a major impact on a resident’s enjoyment of their home. The evidence confirms these criteria apply to the resident’s case.
  26. In line with our approach to compensation, the calculation includes separate elements to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of enjoyment aspect is based on the principle that the resident was charged rent during a period of significant service failure which reduced her enjoyment of the property. The landlord has supplied evidence of the resident’s rent payments in 2023 and 2024 (£194.78 and £202 respectively). From this information, we calculated her average monthly rent to be £779.12 for the period in question.
  27. Although it is not a rent refund, our loss of enjoyment calculation is broadly equivalent to 15% of the resident’s rent while she lived at the property. This approach is approximately based on the number of rooms that were affected (bedroom, hallway, bathroom). It is considered proportionate because the landlord completed a number of repairs during the complaint timeline. The evidence suggests these mitigated some of the damp and mould issues. It also suggests that the resident declined some works that may have improved matters.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her energy bills, rent account, and other tenancy issues

  1. The resident’s complaint included concerns about her energy bills, a debt, and “irregularities” on her rent account. She also said she wanted to be rehoused with a different landlord. The Ombudsman has seen limited information about these issues. For example, it is unclear what debt or discrepancies the resident was referring to when she raised her complaint. Nevertheless, we have seen enough information to consider the landlord’s response to her concerns.
  2. The landlord has supplied a copy of the property’s inventory form. It is dated 20 February 2023. It includes meter readings and identifies the property’s existing energy supplier. The landlord says the resident reported that she wanted to continue with her previous supplier. It also says it confirmed this was possible, provided her with meter readings from her previous address, and discussed what she needed to do to arrange matters with the supplier. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to the contrary. There is no indication the resident asked the landlord for any additional help to set up her energy supply.
  3. On 14 March 2023 the landlord applied to receive the resident’s rent through a direct payment from her benefits. This indicates it was helping her to manage her finances. Its tenancy records show the government approved its application on the following day. A subsequent record shows the landlord spoke to the resident on 27 March 2023. It said that, during this discussion, the resident checked her Universal Credit journal and confirmed the government had recently made a rent payment. The record suggests that the landlord cooperated with the resident to respond to a query, and confirmed her rent payments were in place. This was a positive approach in the circumstances.
  4. On 25 April 2023 the parties discussed the resident’s rent again. Call notes said the resident felt her rent had not been paid. She also felt this was because the  landlord had not responded to a request from the government. The notes show she wanted it to chase a missing payment. The landlord replied it had spoken to the government’s Universal Credit team and it had advised a payment was sent directly to the resident. From the information provided, the Ombudsman is unable to establish what had happened to the resident’s payment. Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to support a related failure by the landlord.
  5. There were further interactions between the parties on the same day. The landlord asked the resident for a copy of her Universal Credit journal. It also asked her for details of any disputed payments. Records show it checked her old rent account (linked to her previous property) and found that no payments had been made there in error. The above were reasonable steps. Subsequently, the resident asked it to transfer her family to a different housing provider. She said she was “extremely fed up of begging to be housed adequately”. She referenced repair issues, affordability concerns, and a lack of care from the landlord. This shows she had various concerns about its activities. She approached the Ombudsman around the same time. She told us that someone had moved into her old address and they were “running up bills” in her name.
  6. On 27 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to check it had received some rent payments. The landlord said it had not received a payment for the month of April 2023. Subsequently, the resident called the landlord on 4 May 2023 to cancel a prearranged meeting. Later, the landlord made enquiries about her rent payments on 9 May 2023. It is unclear what prompted these enquiries. Its notes said that the government sent the rent payments to the landlord 1 month after it deducted these from the resident’s benefits. They also said her account would always be “in technical arrears” as a result. It may have helped the resident if the landlord had explained this delay to her previously.
  7. The landlord also issued a stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. It addressed the resident’s various concerns about tenancy issues. It did not uphold any of her complaint points. It said she should speak to her energy supplier if she had any concerns about the cost of her bills. It also said she had not raised any specific concerns about a debt with the landlord. It said the parties were due to discuss various issues during a meeting on 5 May 2023. However, it said the resident had cancelled this visit. It also said it had asked its local representative to rearrange the meeting. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
    1. It had received the resident’s first 2 rent payments from the government in April 2023. Universal Credit was always paid in arrears.
    2. It had a limited supply of available homes. These were allocated to local authorities. Unless it received permission from its local authority partners, it could not find alternative accommodation for the resident.
    3. It had explained the above information to the resident previously. If she wanted a permanent move, she should contact her local authority for support.
  8. The landlord explained its position in its response. Its explanations were reasonable and we have not seen any evidence that contradicts these. However, it could have done more to support the resident in her request for a move. For example, it could have signposted her to alternative ways of moving such as the mutual exchange process. This would have been a reasonable approach. Since it did not do this, the landlord missed an important opportunity to help the resident achieve her preferred outcome. There is no evidence to show it provided information about alternative ways to move subsequently. However, it is not certain that the resident would have secured a move using another method. As a result, we find its omission had a limited impact on her.
  9. The resident referenced some of her tenancy concerns in her escalation request on 17 May 2023. Specifically, she said the landlord had not taken any meter readings during the sign-up process. She felt this was contrary to its legal obligations. As mentioned, there is evidence that it had taken readings during the resident’s move. Subsequently, it arranged to meet the resident on 17 July 2023 to discuss her various tenancy concerns. The evidence suggests this meeting took place. However, the landlord has not supplied any information to show what the parties discussed. This points to a record keeping problem.
  10. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its initial stage 2 response on 26 July 2023. It referenced a recent meeting between the parties. It said the resident reported that she had resolved the energy issues with her supplier. It also said she had confirmed that her concerns about an outstanding debt, and her rent account, “had been resolved in full”. Similarly, it noted that she was happy with the outcome. There is no indication that the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events at this stage. It is also noted her tenancy concerns were not mentioned during the landlord’s complaint responses in 2024. Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to support any related failures by the landlord at this point.
  11. During her update to the Ombudsman in May 2025, the resident told us her tenancy concerns had not been resolved. She said she was paying off an energy debt of around £2,500. She felt this figure was excessive and did not reflect her own energy use. From the evidence provided, there is no indication that this debt relates to a failure by the landlord. Similarly, though we have seen evidence of the resident’s payments during her tenancy, there is no indication of any irregularities on her rent account. Overall, there is no evidence to support any critical failures by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  12. In summary, the landlord could have done more to help the resident achieve her preferred move to another housing provider. It could have reasonably signposted her to alternative methods of moving such as the mutual exchange process. It missed an important opportunity to help her. However, there was no guarantee that the resident could have secured a move using another method. Similarly, it may have been helpful if the landlord had explained the government’s rent payment process (that there was a 1-month delay) to the resident sooner. Given the extent of its failures and the corresponding impact to the resident, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  13. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Again, our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. On 10 and 31 March 2023 the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction to the landlord. However, it did not raise a complaint at this time. Its complaints policy defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made…”. The resident’s comments were consistent with this definition. If it was unsure how to proceed, the landlord could have proactively asked her if she wanted to raise a complaint. There is no indication it did this. Its approach was inadequate. If the resident was unable to pursue her concerns through the correct channel, this may have been distressing for her. She approached the Ombudsman for help around 25 April 2023. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her. Our intervention should not have been necessary at this stage. Based on the period between 10 March and 25 April 2023, the landlord was responsible for an inappropriate delay of around 7 weeks.
  2. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 May 2023. This was 9 working days after the Ombudsman’s intervention. Its complaints policy says the landlord should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. When it did raise the complaint, the landlord responded in line with its relevant timescale. However, it did not acknowledge the initial delay in its response or attempt to address it. This was unreasonable. It should routinely consider its own complaint handling at each complaint stage. This will allow the landlord to identify and address any procedural delays and/or failures accordingly.
  3. There was another issue with the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld or not upheld). This was contrary to the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), as published in March 2022. Section 5.8 says a compliant response must include a clear decision on the complaint in “plain language”. It is noted this same failure was repeated in the landlord’s subsequent responses. Its lack of clarity was inappropriate. It may have caused some confusion for the resident.
  4. On 17 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint for various reasons. The landlord declined her request on the same day. It said it was trying to arrange the repairs. It did not explain its decision clearly with reference to its complaints policy. Section 4.14 of the Code says a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint. It must also have “clear and valid” reasons for any refusal and these must be detailed in its complaints policy. The landlord’s approach was inadequate. Since the resident had raised other issues aside from repairs, it was also unreasonable. Arguably, it can be perceived as adversarial. It is noted the resident subsequently told us that the landlord was “extremely hostile” towards her. She felt this may have been because she had involved the Ombudsman. It is also noted the landlord’s correspondence on 17 May 2023 indicates that it believed the Ombudsman was acting as the resident’s legal representative. It is relevant to clarify that we are an impartial service.
  5. At the resident’s request, the Ombudsman intervened again on 23 June 2023.  We asked the landlord to clarify its position. It subsequently issued an “initial response” at stage 2 on 26 July 2023. This was around 10 weeks after the resident had asked it to escalate her complaint. It later issued another stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. This largely reiterated information from its previous response. While the landlord awarded some compensation at this point, it did not acknowledge any complaint handling delays or the associated impact to the resident. This was inadequate, and is further evidence that the landlord did not sufficiently consider its own complaint handling during its investigations. It is also noted that, by issuing 2 complaint responses at stage 2, the landlord departed from its published complaints process. This may have caused some confusion for the resident.
  6. The evidence points to another issue with the landlord’s stage 2 responses.  This is because the parties agree that there were further quality issues with the landlord’s repairs around the time the responses were issued. The landlord’s comments about “cut corners” suggests these were significant. However, it did not mention the quality issues in its responses. This arguably showed a lack of transparency. More significantly, there is no indication it attempted to address the additional issues it had found. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle “learning from outcomes”. It was also unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to show the resident it had learned from her negative experience. It also missed an opportunity to improve its services for other residents.
  7. Finally, it is noted the landlord’s responses often referred to additional repairs that the landlord had completed (which did not relate to the resident’s complaint). It is reasonable to conclude that the resident benefitted from these repairs. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, completing repairs that have been deemed to be necessary is not a form of redress.
  8. In summary, there were significant failures at each stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The associated delays caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. She was unable to progress her concerns without 2 separate interventions by the Ombudsman. Arguably, the landlord’s approach was adversarial and the resident perceived this. Its complaint handling may have damaged the parties’ relations further. The landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures or attempted to put things right for her. Similarly, there is no indication it attempted to learn from some additional quality issues that it identified. Given the severity and impact of its accumulated failures, we find there was severe maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The landlord did not comply with its operative’s recommendation to obtain a damp survey. This was inappropriate and points to problems with its void processes. It also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about an injury on a number of occasions. This suggests there are problems with its approach to liability matters. It is noted liability claims against landlords are fairly common. Similarly, the landlord did not consider its complaint handling in any of the responses that we have seen. This points to problems with its complaint handling practices. Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to review its related policies and practice. We have done this as its related failures may give rise to further complaints about these matters. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her energy bills, rent account, and other tenancy issues.
    3. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must acknowledge the key failures that are identified in this report. It should also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,870.53 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of leaks, damp, and mould. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct the £750 which it previously awarded the resident in its complaint responses (or any part of it that has already been paid).
    2. £2,220.53 for the resident’s related loss of enjoyment of the property (£116.87 x 19 months).
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about various tenancy issues.
    4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. This is to ensure she can pursue any concerns about injury or damaged items through an appropriate channel. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. For efficiency, it can include the relevant information in its apology letter.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its policies and practice around void processes (especially its approach to undiagnosed repair issues), insurance/liability matters, and its approach to redressing complaint handling failures. The review must be conducted by a team that is independent of the service areas that are responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord must share the review’s findings with the Ombudsman within 16 weeks. It must also report the findings to its governing board or body. The review must include (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the key failings identified in this report occurred and whether the landlord has sufficient policies, procedures, guidance, and processes in place to deal with these matters fairly and appropriately.
    2. An exploration of whether any additional complaints (for other residents) have been impacted by similar failures.
    3. Details of the overall number of cases that are impacted along with details of the number of residents that are affected.
  5. Following the review, the landlord should:
    1. Produce a report setting out:
      1. The findings and learnings from the review
      2. The steps the landlord will take to prevent similar failings from recurring.
    2. Implement the recommendations from the review. This includes cascading any identified improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
  6. The landlord must share a summary of the report’s other key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. At the resident’s request, the landlord should raise a new complaint to address any concerns the resident has about her new property (if it has not done this already).