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

Take part in the consultation

ForHousing Limited (202450035)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450035

ForHousing Limited

26 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 repairs to the living room flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a tenancy with the landlord in 2-bedroom house. She lives with her young daughter, who has breathing difficulties.
  2. On 9 July 2024 the resident reported that damp had caused the living room floor to rise. The landlord inspected the property on 15 July 2024. Between 27 August and 9 September 2024 the landlord screeded and re-laid the flooring.
  3. On 9 September 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the flooring work had not been done properly, and the operatives told her they were not qualified to carry out the work. She explained that the household had been living in the bedroom for 3 weeks, and she had to take time off work. She said that the floor was ruined and that she was told to buy a new pack of flooring before the landlord would send someone to fit it.
  4. On 14 October 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It said that the resident had signed a disclaimer, and it would not be responsible for the flooring being re-laid improperly. It added that it had asked its site supervisor to inspect the work and make sure the flooring had been put back correctly.
  5. In November 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. On 24 January 2025 the landlord removed all the living room flooring, installed a full damp proof course, concreted it over and levelled it. On 7 March 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
    1. It apologised for the delayed response.
    2. A surveyor visited in December 2024 and confirmed that the flooring needed to be removed, and a full damp proof course installed.
    3. The operative who initially attended did not complete the flooring work to a satisfactory standard, which caused damage.
    4. It agreed to cover the cost of storing the resident’s sofa while the work was carried out.
    5. It paid the resident £60 to buy a rug so she could use her living room over Christmas.
    6. It would offer £1,550 compensation, made up of £500 towards the cost of the replacement flooring, £300 for the delayed stage 2 response, £350 for being unable to use the living room, £200 for poor workmanship and £200 for the distress caused.
  6. In her referral to us, the resident said the situation caused stress to the household. She explained that it also affected her financially and added that there was still damp in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the living room flooring.

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. In this case, the landlord accepted that the operative who re-laid the flooring after the resident’s report of 9 July 2024 did not complete the work to a satisfactory standard, resulting in damage. The landlord also accepted that the entire living room floor had to be removed and replaced at the resident’s expense. The evidence also showed the landlord did not carry out the initial flooring repair within its policy timescales, and there were further delays in inspecting and repairing the flooring after the resident complained.
  3. These failings caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was unable to use her living room fully for more than 6 months. She also had to take time off work while the issue continued. The impact of this situation was made worse by her daughter’s health conditions.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused in its final response and paid £750 compensation. This was fair and in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £600 where there were failings that had a significant adverse effect.
  5. The resident also faced financial difficulty because she had to pay for new flooring. She provided the landlord with an invoice showing that she paid £1,500 for the replacement and fitting of flooring in the living room and hallway. The landlord paid £500 towards this cost. It accepted that poor workmanship caused the damage and did not dispute that the resident had to buy new living room flooring. Although it is unclear what proportion of the £1,500 was for the living room flooring, the landlord did not explain why it would only contribute £500.
  6. While the landlord attempted to put things right, it did not go far enough. This is because the resident had to pay for new flooring and for it to be fitted due to the landlord’s poor workmanship. And it only paid one-third of the total invoice cost without an adequate explanation as to why.
  7. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation as a further contribution towards the cost of the replacement flooring.
  8. The resident told us that damp and mould have been ongoing since May 2024 and continue to be a problem. We cannot assess the landlord’s handling of the wider damp and mould issues because they were not raised through the landlord’s complaints process. However, in its final response, the landlord did say that a team member would review the issues with the resident’s living arrangements. As such, we recommend that the landlord inspects the property and produces an action plan with clear timescales to address the damp and mould.

Complaint handling

  1. There were delayed responses at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process. Stage 1 took 26 working days, and stage 2 took around 4 months. These delays were unreasonable and contrary to the landlord’s policy timescales. This caused time and trouble for the resident who had to chase the landlord for both responses.
  2. The landlord’s final response said that the resident asked to escalate the complaint in November 2024, however, there is no evidence to confirm this. There are also no details of what the resident said in the escalation request. This indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, and we have made a recommendation below.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge its stage 1 delay. However, in its final response, it offered £300 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint, which it later paid to the resident. This was fair and proportionate to the detriment caused by the delays at both stages of the complaints process.
  4. The offer was also consistent with our remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £100 where failures have adversely affected the resident. We therefore find reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the living room flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation as a further contribution towards the cost of the replacement flooring.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should inspect the property for damp and mould. If works are needed, it should create an action plan with proposed timescales.
  2. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).