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

Take part in the consultation

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202347546)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347546

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

15 October 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. This investigation considers:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wall.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. A representative has supported the resident during the repairs and complaints process. They will both be referred to collectively as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 22 September 2016.
  3. Following the resident’s earlier reports of a cracked wall and a faulty front door, he formally raised a complaint with the landlord on 27 February 2024. He requested that the landlord repair the crack and replace the door.
  4. The landlord responded on 15 March 2024. It said it inspected the crack on two occasions and found it was the resident’s responsibility to repair. Operatives had attempted to repair the front door but the resident had not agreed because he believed it needed to be replaced. It explained it would not replace it at that time but would continue to repair as needed. It acknowledged a delay in responding to the front door repair, apologised, and offered £10 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 March 2024. He disputed the landlord’s explanations and decisions about both issues.
  6. In the landlord’s final response on 17 April 2024, it reiterated the crack in the wall was “hairline” and deemed decorative which the resident was responsible for, and it would not replace the front door until its scheduled renewal in 2037. The landlord re-raised an appointment for repairs to the door.
  7. Despite this position, the landlord changed its decision several days later and agreed to replace the front door. It also arranged for remedial works to the crack within a month of previously stating that the issue was the resident’s responsibility.
  8. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the wall needed more investigation. The landlord replaced the front door, but the resident wants the Ombudsman to investigate how the repairs were handled. He is asking the landlord to fix the crack and improve its service.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with the Service, he raised concerns about further issues with the wall after the complaints process. While these issues may be linked to the matters here, they are from a further time-period which will need to be raised with the landlord as a new complaint before the Ombudsman can investigate.
  2. Accordingly, the resident should raise his concerns with the landlord as a complaint. If he remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he has the option of bringing the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord and in his correspondence to the Ombudsman, he said that the crack and front door had been an issue over a period of many years. There is no evidence of a formal complaint to the landlord until February 2024. Complaints should be raised within a reasonable timescale (which we usually consider to be 12 months from when the issue arose) so that landlords can take action to resolve the issues. Also, as time passes records become unavailable and memories fade. Because of that this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues at the property in the months leading up to his complaint in February 2024 and the landlord’s final response to it in April 2024.

Repairs to the wall

  1. The resident reported a large plaster crack on the wall within his home on 17 November 2023. The landlord’s operator attended the resident’s home to inspect the wall on 19 December 2023. Landlord repair logs show it identified a “hairline crack” in the wall and no further work was outstanding. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he is responsible for decorating, while the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the resident’s home in good repair, in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
  2. After the operatives attended in December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when they would return to complete the work. He told the landlord that a surveyor had said to him that the wall was at risk of collapse. However, the landlord’s records do not support this assessment. In response, the landlord said that there were no current reports requiring repairs to the wall.
  3. In February 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, saying that the crack had worsened despite previous repair efforts involving replastering. He requested that the landlord carry out a more effective repair to the wall.
  4. The landlord responded on 15 March 2024. It said the resident reported the cracked wall on 17 November 2023. Operatives inspected the wall on 19 December 2023 and told the resident it was his responsibility to repair. The resident disagreed, so a supervisor further inspected the wall on 5 February 2024 and confirmed the landlord had no works to complete as the crack in the wall was decorative.
  5. On 15 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had previously attended to repair the cracks. But over a lengthy period, they had always returned, and eventually the landlord had said they were his responsibility to address because they were a decorative matter. He disagreed and wanted the landlord to provide a permanent solution.
  6. On 17 April 2024, the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident. It reiterated there were no structural issues with the wall. It said the cracks were a “hairline crack” which was decorative and therefore the resident’s responsibility.
  7. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of the wall in May 2024, prompting it to carry out further surveys and remedial work. Repairs continued until the resident requested a structural survey, which took place in November 2024 and confirmed the need for additional work. Evidence shows that the landlord completed further repairs in December 2024.
  8. The landlord’s decision in May 2024to repair the wall was made less than a month after its final complaint response in which it told the resident the cracks were minor and decorative, and his responsibility to resolve. Nothing in the evidence seen in this investigation explains the changed decision. In the absence of such evidence it appears, therefore, that the decision the landlord made up to and including the end of the complaint process was not robust, which is why it then changed its mind.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code calls for landlords to acknowledge where things have gone wrong and explain the actions it will take to put things right. In this case the landlord amended its decision. However, it did not acknowledge it had gotten things wrong, or provide remedies, such as an apology, an explanation of what learning it would take from the complaint, or compensation. In the specific circumstances of this complaint and the resident’s concerns, the landlord did not offer any level of redress to resolve its failing or the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the need for him to pursue the outcome the landlord eventually agreed to.

Repairs to the front door

  1. The resident contacted the landlord in December 2023 and February 2024 about an issue with his front door. He said he first reported the issue in November, though the landlord had no record. On 5 February 2024, the landlord raised a repair for the front door handle, but the resident requested a full replacement.
  2. Contractors attended to carry out the repair but could not do so as the resident reiterated his request for a new door. The landlord’s repair policy states it will always repair wherever possible. Replacements will be kept to a minimum and only agreed in exceptional circumstances or where a repair is not achievable to ensure decency.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 February 2024. He said that the front door had been repaired by the landlord 7 times and he believed it was beyond repair, partly because the seal and locking mechanism were faulty. He asked for the landlord to replace the door.
  4. The landlord responded on 15 March 2024. It said a supervisor inspected the front door on 5 February 2024. The landlord had agreed to replace the door’s handle on 7 February 2024 but the resident did not allow access given that his complaint was with the Ombudsman at the time. The landlord said the door, fitted in 2007, was not due for renewal. It acknowledged a delay in its initial visit to the resident’s home, apologised and offered £10 compensation. It also explained what it had learnt from the complaint.
  5. On 15 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He told the landlord his front door was of poor quality and according to landlord records is nearly 20 years old. He said he did not want it to repair the door.
  6. The landlord provided its final response on 17 April 2024. It reiterated that the door was not due for renewal until 2037. It said the only work that it was responsible for was replacing the handle and lock. It raised a new appointment to undertake outstanding repairs.
  7. The resident reiterated that further repairs will not resolve the issue and sent photographs of the door to the landlord. On 30 April 2025, the landlord sent a further complaint response in which it agreed to replace the front door, and contractors completed the installation on 3 June 2025.
  8. The landlord changed its decision to replace the door just over a week after saying it would not do so. As with the wall issue, the landlord had previously inspected the door in person on more than one occasion, suggesting that the photos revealed details it had previously overlooked. This shows failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  9. While the landlord amended its decision and issued an apology, it did not acknowledge its failings. It did not offer additional remedies such as an explanation of the lessons learned from the complaint or compensation (beyond its initial £10) for the trouble the resident had been put to. Given the circumstances of this complaint, the remedies offered by the landlord were insufficient to resolve its failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a formal complaints process with 2 stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In this case the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 27February 2024. On 12 March 2024, it notified the resident there would be a delay to respond due to a backlog and would aim to respond by 26 March 2024.It responded on 15 March 2024.
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint as he was unhappy with the response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 March 2024 and responded on 17 April 2024. In its reply, it recommended that the resident contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  4. Overall, although the landlord delayed its stage 1 response, it kept the resident informed and explained the reasons. It managed the complaint fairly and met the deadline in its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s wall.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of the failing found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £410 within 4 weeks of this report. This amount includes the £10 it previously offered. It is comprised of:
    1. £200 for the failings in its handling of the wall issue.
    2. £200 for the failings in its handling of the door issue.
  2. Given the findings of this investigation, the landlord must consider what it can learn from the resident’s complaint and how it can use this to improve its repair services. It must write to the resident within 6 weeks of this report to explain its conclusions and how it will prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of the above to this service.