East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202428486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428486

East Midlands Housing Group 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 a leak from the ceiling and the subsequent repairs.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
4. On 26 February 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak into her flat which had left her ceiling in a bad way. The landlord attended on several occasions following this during which it inspected the resident’s flat and the flat above, and completed repairs. The resident went on to raise a complaint with the landlord on 18 April 2024. She said she was unhappy:
   1. With the service she had received.
   2. With the leak from the above property coming into her property.
   3. With the stress she was experiencing and said she felt this would not be quickly resolved as she had experienced leaks previously.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 June 2024 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024. In its response, it upheld the complaint and said:
   1. It attended as an emergency on 26 February 2024 and again on 8 March 2024.
   2. The ceiling needed further attention, one leak was identified from the flat above and it had fixed the waste pipe from the cylinder to the stack which appeared to have stopped the leak.
   3. It tested all the pipework and raised no further concerns. It said the ceiling needed further inspection.
   4. It raised further works between April-June 2024 and a dehumidifier was delivered, an electrical job was also booked to remove lights and a job raised for the plasterer.
   5. It explained the lessons learnt from the complaint including holding regular meetings and working hard to improve the time taken to acknowledge complaints.
   6. It offered £180 compensation which consisted of £10 for the delays in logging the resident’s complaint, £135 for the inconvenience caused by the repair and £35 for the energy used from the dehumidifier.
6. On 4 July 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she wanted the landlord to reimburse her £300.45, which she had spent on washing and drying items at the laundrette, on heating costs to dry out the ceilings and walls, and on purchasing various items such as a new quilt, cloths and wipes.
7. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 14 October 2024, the landlord offered the resident £345 compensation. This was made up of £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the repair, £35 for the energy used by the dehumidifier, £10 for the delays in logging the complaint and £50 for the extensions to its stage 2 complaint response.
8. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She confirmed that all the repair issues had been resolved but she was dissatisfied with how long it took. She also felt the compensation offered was not enough.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. This investigation has considered events between February and October 2024, and which formed part of the complaint raised with the landlord and considered through the complaints process. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any concerns raised by the resident first, under its complaints procedure.
10. The resident has told us that contractors damaged her floor and while the landlord agreed to meet the costs of the flooring, it said the cost of installation would need to be claimed through the resident’s insurance. We have not seen any evidence that this matter was raised in the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to the landlord or that it was addressed in the landlord’s responses. Therefore, we cannot consider this matter as part of this investigation and have recommended that the landlord logs a new complaint about this matter, if the resident still wishes to pursue it.

Handling of the leak and subsequent repairs

11. The resident first reported the leak to the landlord on 26 February 2024. The landlord attended the same day as an emergency repair and completed repairs to the bathroom in the flat above. This was an appropriate response and was in line with the repairs policy which requires emergency repairs to be attended to within 24 hours.
12. However, the contractor noted that further investigation was required and a follow up appointment was not attended to until 8 March 2024, 11 working days later. It is unclear why it took the landlord this long to follow up, and given that the leak required further investigation, this was an unreasonable delay.
13. On 27 March 2024 the landlord told its contractors to raise a job for the ceiling repair. It appears that prior to these repairs being completed, the landlord had to carry out an asbestos check. This was raised on 8 April 2024 and completed on 26 April 2024; almost 3 weeks after the job was raised.
14. It is concerning that the resident had to chase the landlord to progress the ceiling repairs on various occasions, including on 4 April, 30 April, 14 May and 29 May 2024. The repair records confirm that the ceiling repairs were raised on 21 May 2024 and booked in for 25 June 2024, however there was a further delay as the landlord identified that the insulation above the ceiling was wet and needed to removed, and a dehumidifier was needed to dry the area out. The ceiling repairs subsequently took place during August and September 2024, and the redecoration works were completed by 17 October 2024.
15. The landlord’s response to the reports about damp and mould is also of concern. The resident reported the presence of black mould in the property from at least 4 April 2024. A damp and mould survey was carried out on 14 May 2024 and works were completed on 10 June 2024. Therefore, the works were completed over 2 months after the matter was reported and this was an unreasonable delay considering the impact damp and mould can have on living conditions and residents’ health and wellbeing.
16. As our spotlight report on damp and mould confirms, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s leaflet on controlling damp and black mould also confirms that it will attend within 14 days of the matter being reported to it, a commitment that it failed to meet in this case.
17. In summary, the delays in progressing the repairs were unreasonable. The evidence indicates there was a lack of oversight of the outstanding repairs and a failure to ensure inspections and repairs were scheduled promptly. Furthermore, the resident had to go to the time and trouble of chasing the landlord for updates and to progress the repairs.
18. The available evidence indicates that the leak stopped fairly soon after it was reported, but the resident was left with a large hole in her bedroom ceiling which had been cut out to expose where the leak was coming from. Remedial works to put right the damage caused by the leak were left outstanding for a considerable period of time and the resident had to live in damp and mouldy conditions for longer than was necessary.
19. Given the identified failures, it was appropriate that the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised and offered compensation. It also demonstrated that lessons had been learnt from the complaint as it said it would hold regular meetings with the repairs team to monitor repair complaints and discuss learning.
20. The landlord offered the resident £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused, plus £35 for electricity usage for the dehumidifier. This was not adequate taking into account the impact the outstanding repairs had on the living conditions, the length of time the repairs were outstanding, and the time and trouble the resident went to in chasing the landlord and in accommodating repair appointments.
21. In addition, there was no indication in the stage 2 response that the landlord had considered the resident’s claim for the costs she incurred (aside from offering an amount towards electricity usage). As the resident said that she had incurred costs as a result of the leak it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position on this, and provided an explanation if it rejected all or part of the claim (such as directing the resident to claim under her contents insurance).
22. Therefore, to put things right the landlord is ordered below to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, bringing the total amount for its handling of the repair issue to £435. This is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends awards within this range in such circumstances where there was a failure that significantly affected the resident.
23. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the repair reports and associated claim for compensation. Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right during its complaints process, this did not go far enough.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At Stage 1 it will respond to the complaint within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) confirms that any extension at stage 1 must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and 20 working days at stage 2. The Code confirms that the reason(s) for the extension must be clearly explained to the resident.
25. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 18 April 2024 but this was not logged by the landlord until 4 June 2024. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 2 July 2024 after informing the resident on 18 June that it needed longer to respond. Therefore, it took the landlord over 10 weeks to respond to the complaint, significantly exceeding the 10workingday target. This was unreasonable and failed to meet the requirements of the landlord’s policy and the Code, even taking into account the extension.
26. The stage 2 complaint was escalated on 4 July 2024 and the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 October 2024. This was contrary to the 20 working day target, as it took more than 3 months to issue a response. Although the landlord kept the resident informed of the delays, it did this on at least 3 occasions. In addition, it did not adequately explain the reason for the delays as all it stated was that further time was needed to investigate the complaint.
27. Given the complaint handling failures, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation to the resident. It also said that it had taken lessons by working hard to improve the time taken to acknowledge its complaints. However, the landlord’s offer did not go far enough to put things right. It offered a total of £60 for the delays in the complaints process but this does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the long delays.
28. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This brings the total amount to £135 and is in line with our remedies guidance where there was failure that adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to review what went wrong in its complaint handling and to confirm the steps it will be taking to ensure the same failures do not happen again.
29. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint. Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right during its complaints process, this did not go far enough.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the ceiling and the subsequent repairs.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the further failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation totalling £570. This includes the amount of £345 already offered by the landlord and can be deducted if it has already been paid. The compensation order is broken down as follows:
       1. £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs and claim for compensation.
       2. £35 towards electricity costs.
       3. £135 for the delays in the complaints procedure.
    3. Review what went wrong in its complaint handling and confirm the steps it will be taking to ensure the same failures do not recur.
33. The landlord should contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

34. That the landlord addresses the resident’s concerns about the installation of new flooring as a formal complaint, should the resident wish to pursue this matter further.