Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202342019)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342019

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

24 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 response to the resident’s concerns about issues with the plumbing in the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since December 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 November 2023. She reported that she had experienced repeated blockages in her bathroom toilet, sink, bath, and shower over the past 2 years. This had resulted in considerable inconvenience as she had not been able to bathe prior to going to work.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 December 2024, which included the following:
    1. It noted its records confirmed a number of call outs relating to blockages.
    2. It further noted that the blockages had been cleared on each occasion, and the drains were left running freely.
    3. It advised that, given the repeated blockages, it would arrange for a CCTV survey of the drains.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2024. She said that the blockages were still ongoing every 2-3 weeks, and she was concerned about the length of time it was taking to inspect and resolve the issue. She was also dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 January 2024, which included the following:
    1. It acknowledged the length of time issues had been ongoing and that it had not kept her adequately updated with the outcomes of its investigations.
    2. It confirmed a CCTV inspection took place on 24 January 2024, which had found dropped pipework causing the blockages. It had subsequently completed repairs on 25 January 2024.
    3. It offered £50 compensation to reflect its poor communication. It advised this was the maximum it could offer in the circumstances.
  6. The resident has advised this service that as of February 2024, the issue had returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the issues had been ongoing for a number of years prior to her formal complaint. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this investigation has focused on the events in the 12 months leading up to her formal complaint.
  2. The resident has also noted that she wishes to be rehoused. This did not form part of her original complaint and so is outside of the scope of this investigation. However, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with information about her rehousing options.

Plumbing

  1. It is not disputed that keeping the plumbing within the property in good repair is the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord’s website notes its repair timeframes being 24 hours for emergency repairs, 7 days for urgent repairs, and 21 days for non-urgent repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that between 27 November 2022 and 27 November 2023, it recorded at least 8 repair requests relating to the plumbing at the property. Of these, 3 were classified as emergency repairs, and 2 as urgent repairs. Based on the evidence provided, it appears that the landlord attended these repairs in line with its repair responsibilities.
  3. However, where there are repeated similar repairs over a short time period, it may not be sufficient to simply leave the property in a working state without also considering if there is an underlying cause. The landlord’s records should have reasonably led it to consider further escalated inspections, for example, using a specialist surveyor. Given the frequency of repairs, this potentially would have prevented further expenditure for the landlord too. Additionally, the resident had repeatedly made it clear that the periods without working plumbing were having a significant impact on her. This too should have prompted the landlord to take action. It is not evident this was ever considered, however.
  4. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord appropriately recognised the length of time the issues had been ongoing and upheld her complaint. It also recognised the need for further inspections, which it advised it would arrange. Given the length of time the issues had been ongoing, however, it would have been helpful to have provided a timeframe for these further inspections. If this was not possible, it could also have committed to a timeframe for a further update. Instead, these actions were left open ended which would have been frustrating for the resident and left her feeling the issues were not a priority.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 commitment was made on 11 December 2023. However, the inspection did not take place until 24 January 2024. This was 29 working days later which was not in line with the ‘non-urgent’ repair timeframe in the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman understands that sometimes works, especially those involving specialist equipment, can take longer to arrange. However, in such circumstances, the landlord should effectively communicate with the resident to keep them updates. This was especially true here given the history of the case and the impact on the resident.
  6. Additionally, while the landlord appropriately arranged repair works for the day following the inspection, it is once again not clear this outcome was communicated to the resident. This was a further missed opportunity to keep her updated and assure her this matter was important to the landlord.
  7. The landlord appropriately recognised these failings in its stage 2 response, for which it apologised. It also sought to put things right by offering £50 compensation. While this positive, this offer was not reflective of the distress experienced by the resident.
  8. Additionally, the landlord’s policy notes that for a ‘right to repair’ issue, it is limited to £50 compensation. However, its policies allow it to offer discretionary compensation to reflect impact caused by service failure. It is evident that in the discussion between the parties, the landlord remained firm that £50 was the maximum it could offer in the circumstances. However, given it accepted failings at both stage 1 and 2 around repairs, communication, and the impact this had, it was a missed opportunity to consider discretionary compensation to better reflect the distress caused.
  9. In summary, the landlord failed to recognise a reoccurring issue despite its records indicating this and despite the resident expressing her concerns. When it did resolve to take action, this was delayed without explanation and without effective communication, which was a further failing. While it did recognise some of these failings, its offers of redress were not sufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £300 compensation has been made, being £150 for the failure to recognise works and delays in their completion, and £150 for the poor communication and the impact this caused. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failing which has had a detrimental impact on the resident.
  10. The resident has noted that following the works the issue returned. Given that some time has now passed, it may be the case that this has previously been raised. Nevertheless, an order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to enquire as to whether any issues remain outstanding. Should this be the case, the landlord is to commit to further works, provide specific dates, and commit to updates as part of any works.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to resident’s concerns about issues with the plumbing in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the plumbing issues.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident to enquire as to whether any issues remain outstanding. Should this be the case, the landlord is to commit to further works, provide specific dates for any next steps, and commit to regular updates as part of any works.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to provide the resident with information about her rehousing options.