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.

Midland Heart Limited (202441493)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441493

Midland Heart Limited

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:
    1. Reports of repairs in the bathroom and associated damp and mould.
    2. Reports of issues with the heating system.
    3. Concerns about the communal laundry facility.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat situated in a block, which is part of a retirement living scheme. The resident has physical disabilities, which the landlord has a record of.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident contacted it in March 2023 about the communal laundry facility. She also reported an issue with the storage heaters in her property in May 2023 and issues relating to damp in June 2023.
  3. On 7 February 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
    1. Her experience had been “appalling” since she had moved into the property 2 years ago. Her physical and mental health had been made “dramatically worse” due to her living conditions. There was a “long list of issues” which had not been resolved.
    2. Most days her bathroom smelt of sewage and there was little to no water pressure, which made showering a “miserable experience”.
    3. She kept her property clean and well-ventilated, but it was a daily task to remove the mould.
    4. Her property did not have adequate heating. The air quality in her property was making it difficult to maintain personal hygiene as the air was cold and uncomfortable, which meant she found it difficult to get dry after a shower.
    5. She had borrowed money to buy her own washing machine and tumble dryer due to multiple problems with the communal laundry machines.
    6. She felt she should be offered compensation for the expenses she had incurred, as well as for the distress and impact to her wellbeing.
  4. On 21 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It said it had not identified any service failure, and therefore it was unable to uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had escalated the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould to its specialist team.
    2. It had referred the resident to its Technical Maintenance Surveyor for a visit to discuss repairs and her concerns regarding the storage heaters.
    3. It could not address the issues raised regarding the communal laundry machines as part of the complaint, as they had occurred outside of its policy timescales.
    4. It committed to overseeing the inspections raised and any subsequent repairs as part of its complaint response.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 19 March 2024. She said she felt the landlord had not accurately detailed its telephone call with her at stage 1. She stated that the only repair which had been completed was to the outside air vent and there were other repairs which were still outstanding. She said the heating issues were also still ongoing. She stated she felt that nothing had changed in the length of time she had been reporting the issues, and she had jumped through “exasperating hoops” which she felt was unacceptable.
  6. On 16 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint based on the issues the resident had experienced with the communal washing machine and for its delayed response at stage 2. It said:
    1. It had taken appropriate action by referring the resident’s reports to its specialist damp and mould team. It had arranged for a secondary assessment to be completed by a damp and mould surveyor.
    2. Repairs which had been identified by the surveyor during their visit on 27 February 2024 had been completed on 26 April 2024.
    3. It had found no faults with the storage heaters on previous visits to the property, but it had requested for an electrician to revisit.
    4. A clinical clean had been completed to the communal washing machine.
    5. It offered £200 compensation to the resident, made up of:
      1. £100 for the inconvenience she had experienced with the communal washing machine.
      2. £100 for the delay in her receiving its formal review response.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 November 2024. She said she felt the landlord had not conducted a thorough investigation at stage 2 and information contained within its response was incorrect. She said she had contacted the landlord 2 months ago but was still awaiting a reply.
  2. During contact with us in September 2025, the resident said the landlord had recently diagnosed an issue with the pipes and drainage in her bathroom, which she believed was the cause of the “rotten and damp” fixtures and fittings. As an outcome, the resident told us she would like a bathroom replacement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and issues with the heating system impacted her health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The resident said she had experienced issues related to damp and mould since moving into the property in 2022. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner to give landlords a fair opportunity to investigate and address issues while they remain ‘live’. This is important because relevant evidence that may have existed at the time may no longer be available. Accordingly, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from February 2023, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The resident said the landlord has recently diagnosed an issue with the pipes and drainage in her bathroom. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process and the commitments arising from this. We will therefore consider events up to 24 May 2024, but the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after this time. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which she may escalate to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Bathroom repairs and associated damp and mould

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also states it will keep in repair the installations in the property for sanitation, including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences.
  2. The landlord’s website says it offers 3 repair priorities (emergency, routine and major). It says it aims to complete all routine repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it operates a 2-stage approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould. At stage 1, it will arrange to visit and complete a mould wash within 14 days. It states a case will be escalated to stage 2 if it receives a further report of damp and mould for the same area within an 18-month period. At stage 2, it will undertake a full damp and mould survey within 7 days.
  4. Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are hazards that falls within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  5. The landlord’s records show the resident emailed it on 12 June 2023 about a transfer to another property. Within the email, she also reported damp and mould affecting her property and the negative effect this was having on both her physical and mental health. In response, the landlord attempted to contact the resident and when it was unable to reach her, forwarded her email to the Retirement Living Officer (RLO) and surveyor for further action. These were positive initial steps, but there is no evidence of what follow-up action, if any, was taken after this point. This points to a record keeping issue.
  6. The landlord’s records show that internal discussions took place on 21 June 2023 about the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It stated 3 visits had been carried out to her property by different staff members, including a surveyor, but no issues had been found other than a small amount of condensation on the windowsill, for which appropriate advice had been given. This indicates the landlord had taken steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, due to the lack of clear records, it is not possible to confirm when these inspections took place or the exact findings.
  7. On 27 July 2023, the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s local MP, who reported that the resident had raised concerns about “extensive disrepair” in her property including issues with damp and humidity. On 31 July 2023, the landlord responded by arranging an inspection of the property. This was an appropriate and proportionate response given the concerns raised.
  8. An inspection was completed 3 days later, on 3 August 2023, which shows the landlord acted quickly. It was appropriate for it to treat this as a priority given the potential health risks associated with damp and mould. Following the inspection, on 8 August 2023, the surveyor raised follow-on works to re-grout the wall tiling where mould was present in the bathroom and reseal the shower tray. According to the landlord’s records, these repairs were completed on 15 August 2023, within the landlord’s routine repair timescales.
  9. On the same date (8 August 2023), follow-on works were also raised to replace the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. The landlord’s records suggest that access was attempted on 2 occasions, though no supporting evidence has been provided to confirm this. A further attempt was made on 16 October 2023, but the resident stated she was unable to proceed with the works on that date and was told to re-book when convenient. This indicates the landlord made reasonable efforts to replace the extractor fans, which was appropriate considering the reported concerns about damp and humidity.
  10. On 7 February 2024, the resident complained about ongoing pink mould in her bathroom and slime and mould in the shower seals. She said the surveyor had shown her how to clean them, but even with regular cleaning the mould kept coming back. She explained that she had bought a dehumidifier, and it had taken “weeks of removing litres of water to get it down to a level fit for human habitation”. She also said she’d had to throw away furniture because of the mould and had photos to prove it. In its stage 1 response on 21 February 2024, the landlord confirmed it had arranged for a surveyor to visit the resident’s property on 27 February 2024. It also stated it had referred the matter to its specialist damp and mould team, which would visit on 12 March 2024. This was appropriate given the concerns that had been raised and in line with the approach set out in its policy.
  11. The stage 1 response, however, did not address the specific concerns the resident had raised about her damaged furniture, leaving that part of the complaint unresolved. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated this further – for example, by requesting copies of the photos the resident said she had taken. This would have allowed it to provide appropriate advice, including signposting the resident to make a claim through her contents insurance, or considering whether the matter was something that should be referred to its own liability insurer. By not doing so, the landlord missed the opportunity to give the resident clear advice, which added to her distress and inconvenience.
  12. The landlord’s records show that the surveyor attended on 27 February 2024. However, follow-on works were not raised until 19 March 2024, 21 days after the inspection. These works included resealing the bathroom, fitting a new shower rail, head, and hose, and replacing the extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom. The reason for the delay is unclear, but we find the length of time taken to raise the works was unreasonable. This delay likely added to the resident’s frustration and resulted in her requesting to escalate her complaint on 19 March 2024, which caused her additional time and trouble.
  13. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on 7 March 2024 to complete a mould wash but was unable to gain access. However, there is no evidence to suggest the resident was aware of this appointment, as the stage 1 had stated the appointment date as 12 March 2024. Upon request, the landlord confirmed that it had also visited on 12 March 2024, but this had again resulted in no access. Despite this, no documentary evidence has been provided to verify the reported no-access attempts. The repair was then incorrectly marked as completed, which meant no further follow-up actions were taken. As this visit had been raised as part of the complaint resolution process, we find the landlord should have been more proactive by attempting to contact the resident or re-booking the repair. Instead, it closed the job and left it to the resident to make further contact, contributing to her decision to escalate the complaint.
  14. In her escalation request, the resident explained that operatives attended to carry out the scheduled mould treatment but, on arrival, said they could not complete the works. They reportedly stated they had been sent to treat mould on the walls and were not authorised to do the work that was required to the seals, which were part of the problem. This indicates a lack of clear instruction by the landlord, which led to a further delay in resolving the resident’s concerns.
  15. The repairs raised on 19 March 2024 were completed 38 days later, on 26 April 2024. This represented a delay of 10 days based on the landlord’s 28-day routine repair timescale. This was unreasonable given the delay in raising the repairs initially, and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  16. In its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024, the landlord confirmed it had arranged for a specialist damp and mould surveyor to attend on 20 May 2024. This was appropriate given the resident’s ongoing concerns and consistent with the approach set out in its policy. It also demonstrated that the landlord was aware of its responsibilities under HHSRS. Following the inspection, the landlord produced a survey report, which concluded there was no damp or mould present in the property, and therefore no further remedial action was required.
  17. We are unclear of the current position regarding the damp and humidity in the resident’s property. However, during contact with us in September 2025, the resident said the bathroom fixtures and fittings were “rotten and damp” and required replacement. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident’s bathroom needs renewal. Relevant orders have been made in respect of this.
  18. Overall, although the landlord took a number of appropriate steps, we find there were also failings which adversely affected the resident. There were unexplained delays in raising and completing follow on-works. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord failed to appropriately investigate reports of damaged furniture. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failings. Considering the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the bathroom repairs and associated damp and mould.
  19. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out compensation categories which calculate awards by the impact to residents and the time taken to put things right. It categorises these into minor, moderate and severe, and offers varying payments from £50 to £1,000 dependent on these categories.
  20. The landlord did not identify any failings in its handling of the reported damp and mould, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £300 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance and our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, and that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.

Reports of issues with the heating system

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the installations in the property, including heating.
  2. The landlord raised a job to assess and repair the storage heaters affecting the resident’s property on 26 May 2023 after it was reported that they were not working correctly. It attended 21 days later, on 16 June 2023, which was within its 28-day routine repair timescale. At this visit, the landlord renewed the fuse spur in the hallway but found no other issues following an inspection.
  3. The landlord raised a further job for the storage heaters on 26 January 2024 after it was reported again that they were not working correctly. It attended on 16 February 2024, also within its routine repair timescale. At this visit, the landlord inspected all the storage heaters and provided the resident with guidance on their use. This was reasonable, particularly as storage heaters can function differently from other types of heating systems.
  4. In the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2024, she raised concerns that her property did not have “adequate heating” and explained that she had been unable to demonstrate the issues with the storage heaters when operatives had attended. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 February 2024, it confirmed that it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 27 February 2024 to discuss her concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to escalate the matter to a surveyor, especially as a recent inspection had identified no faults with the heating system.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show that the surveyor attended on 27 February 2024. However, there is no record of the surveyor’s findings in relation to the storage heaters. On 22 March 2024, the landlord raised a job for an electrician to service the storage heaters and ensure they were working correctly. This appeared to be follow-on work from the surveyor’s visit. However, it is unclear why it took 24 days after the surveyor’s visit for this job to be raised, and during this time, there is no evidence of any communication from the landlord. This likely contributed to the resident’s decision to escalate her complaint on 19 March 2024, which shows it caused her some distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord attended on 27 March 2024, 5 days later, which was a reasonable response time given the delay in raising the job. During this visit, it confirmed the hallway and lounge heaters were working correctly and advised the resident to keep the bedroom heater switched on so it could fully charge, which was appropriate advice.
  7. In its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for an electrician – who specialised in diagnosing and repairing storage heaters – to attend on 24 May 2024. This was appropriate given the resident’s ongoing concerns and showed a positive commitment to resolving the issue. At the visit, the electrician inspected the hallway heater, but no further action was required as the resident confirmed she had been shown how to adjust the temperature settings, and the heaters were now working correctly.
  8. During contact with us in September 2025, the resident said the ongoing issues with the storage heaters had been attributed to her not using the settings correctly, even though she had explained to the landlord that she had downloaded the manual. A relevant order has been made in respect of this.
  9. Overall, we find the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, taking reasonable steps to investigate, carry out repairs, and provide advice in line with its obligations and policies. However, there was a minor delay in follow-on works being raised. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports about the heating system.
  10. We consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the service failing. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance set out in paragraph 32 and our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, that it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Concerns about the communal laundry facility

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair of common parts and communal items.
  2. On 16 March 2023, the landlord’s records show that internal discussions took place about the communal tumble dryer. This was following reports from the resident on 15 and 16 March 2023 that excrement was still visible in the dryer grilles, despite the landlord’s contractor having attended on 10 March 2023 to clean the dryer. In response, the landlord advised staff at the retirement living scheme to mark the dryer as out of order and confirmed it would raise a further job for its contractor. On 22 March 2023, 6 days later, the contractor attended again, stripped the dryer, carried out a full clean, and left it in full working order. It is concerning that the initial clean was not completed properly. However, once made aware of the ongoing issue, the landlord’s actions were appropriate given the health and safety concerns raised.
  3. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended again on 5 and 16 June 2023 to clean bodily fluids from the communal washing machine. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange specialist cleaning in these circumstances. However, as the records do not confirm when the issues were first reported or who by, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. In the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2024, she said she had bought her own washing machine and tumble dryer due to “numerous problems” with the communal laundry room. She requested compensation for the expenses she had incurred.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained it could not consider this part of the resident’s complaint as the issues fell outside of its policy timescales (assessed below as part of the landlord’s complaint handling). However, in its final response, it confirmed a clinical clean was carried out once it became aware of the problems with the communal machines. It also stated that other appliances in the communal laundry room were unaffected and had been available for use. The landlord offered £100 to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced. This was reasonable of the landlord, as although the issues were understandably distressing for the resident, there is no evidence she was left without access to the laundry facilities and therefore that it was obliged to make this offer. This also demonstrated that it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  6. Overall, the available evidence shows the landlord acted appropriately and we have not identified any failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal laundry facility. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was no maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will recognise an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, as a complaint. It will not consider issues that occurred more than 12 months ago. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are to be acknowledged at both stages within 5 working days, and responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy also states if it is unable to provide a response within its timescales, it will agree an extension with the customer, which will be no longer than an additional 10 working days.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows that on 12 June 2023, the resident said, “[I] think my case needs to be investigated due to the impact it has had upon [my] physical health and subsequently mental health”. On 21 June 2023, the landlord responded, advising that her concerns had been passed to the RLO and surveyor. It also informed her that the matter was not yet at the formal stage, as colleagues were trying to address the issues internally. The resident was advised of the right to escalate to a formal complaint, but given that she had clearly expressed dissatisfaction and highlighted the impact on her health, the issue should have been logged and handled as a formal complaint in line with its policy. The landlord did not do this, which was not fair or reasonable.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s subsequently accepted complaint at stage 1 within the timescale set out in its policy. However, at stage 2, it took 35 working days to provide a response after issuing its acknowledgement. The landlord’s records suggest that an extension letter was sent to the resident, but it is unclear when this was sent. When asked, the landlord could not provide a copy of the letter, indicating poor record keeping. In recognition of the delay, the landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 2. It was appropriate that it considered its own complaint handling and addressed the delay accordingly.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses showed a lack of thorough investigation. At stage 1, it incorrectly said it could not address the issues raised regarding the communal laundry, despite these occurring within 12 months of the complaint being raised. At stage 2, it addressed this substantive issue but did not acknowledge its earlier complaint handling failure. It also concluded that a damp and mould assessment had been completed on 7 March 2024, although records showed there was no access.
  5. A stage 2 complaint is the landlord’s final opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, it did not adequately review its handling of the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs and the associated damp and mould. It did not identify failures in its service which had occurred, and in doing so, it failed to uphold this element of the resident’s complaint and provide adequate redress, which was inconsistent with the evidence. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
  6. Considering the circumstances of the case, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its compensation offer of £100 was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 for complaint handling, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom and associated damp and mould.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating system.
    3. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal laundry facility.
    4. Service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £500, which comprises:
      1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of repairs in the bathroom and associated damp and mould.
      2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports about the heating system.
      3. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
      4. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
      5. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 for complaint handling, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
    3. Contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding issues associated with damp and humidity. If there are, the landlord should address these in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
    4. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to inspect the resident’s bathroom. Following the inspection, the landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman, setting out:
      1. Its assessment of the bathroom considering the resident’s concerns.
      2. Its position in relation to the bathroom fixtures and fittings including whether any repairs or replacement are required. It should provide a clear explanation of its decision-making process with reference to relevant policies and any inspection findings.
      3. A schedule of work including timescales for completion for any further repairs or replacement works, if applicable.
    5. Contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding repair issues associated with the heating system. If there are, the landlord should address these in line with its relevant policies and procedures.