Homes Plus Limited (202447538)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. She moved into the property in September 2023. She has a physical disability and mental health conditions and 2 of her children have autism.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. Repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property
   2. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   3. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord took appropriate and timely action, in line with its repairs policy.

Repairs

6. The landlord failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe and issues remain unresolved after almost 2 years. While it did recently offer additional compensation, this offer was made too late and did not take the full impact on the resident into consideration.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy, including keeping the resident updated when it needed more time to investigate.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

8. The resident recently told the landlord that her hallway window was letting water into the property. As this was reported more than a year after the landlord sent its stage 2 response, we have not investigated this. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her recent report of water ingress, she would need to raise this with it as a new complaint. We have, however, made a recommendation in relation to an inspection.

Damp and mould

9. The resident first reported damp and mould in October 2023. The landlord carried out an inspection that month and did not find any signs of damp and mould at that time. She made a further report of damp and mould on 26 January 2024, saying that plaster was getting wet when it rained.
10. The landlord inspected the property on 1 February 2024, in line with its repairs policy timescale. It identified a possible lack of a cavity tray above the stairs and kitchen windows, potentially allowing water ingress into the property. It booked a suitable appointment for the resident for 8 March 2024 and completed the work on this date, which was reasonable.
11. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported any outstanding issues with damp and mould between the landlord sending its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. From what we have seen, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould promptly, in line with its repairs policy. It completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe, on a date agreed with the resident.

What we have not considered

12. The resident recently told us that during works in her property the landlord lost her downstairs window keys. This was not raised as part of her complaint, so we have not investigated this. Should the resident remain unhappy with this, she should raise this directly with the landlord. We have, however, made a recommendation in relation to the keys.

Repairs

13. On 6 October 2023 the landlord raised a job to repair and patch front door reveals. On 19 November the landlord raised a further job to rectify deep cracks around the front window in the lounge. It completed these jobs on 28 and 29 November 2023. While its policy at the time did not state timescales for repairs, this timeframe was reasonable in the circumstances.
14. On 18 October the resident reported that there were lots of woodlice getting into her bathroom. The landlord raised a job to fill access points; however, this remained outstanding when the resident raised her complaint on 2 February 2024, which was not appropriate. However, in its stage1 response of 28 February 2024, the landlord offered her £150 compensation for delays in it carrying out repairs. This was reasonable and proportionate at this time.
15. In her escalation request of 19 March 2024, the resident said that the landlord had not fully assessed the impact of the complaint. She told it that she was not made aware of all outstanding repairs before moving in and had spent a lot more on redecorating that the £260 voucher it had provided her with.
16. The landlord carried out an inspection on 5 April 2024 and identified that additional work was needed, which required the resident to move out of the property. In its stage 2 response of 12 April 2024 the landlord said that once it had completed work it would discuss reimbursement of expenses and further compensation. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord; however, it failed to provide a timescale for doing this.
17. The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 12 May, with this initially expected to be for 6-10 days. The work took longer than expected and the landlord agreed to book a caravan for her outside of the county as the initial accommodation could not be extended.
18. The landlord carried out a snagging inspection on 30 May 2024 but did not complete the work raised until 16 January 2025. The landlord has told us that the work was delayed due to the resident requesting it be done outside of school holidays. While we appreciate the resident made this request, this does not account for it taking more than 7 months to complete this work. The landlord has told us that it accepts that the work it carried out in May 2024 was not done to a reasonable standard, resulting in it needing to carry out significant remedial work.
19. The landlord did not discuss reimbursement of expenses and further compensation until 17 June 2025, after we got involved. It failed to follow through with its stage 2 promise in a reasonable timeframe and it was not appropriate that it required our intervention for it to do so.
20. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2025 and made the following offer, totalling £1,873.86 (£2,023.86 including its offer at stage 1):
    1. £623.86 towards the cost of replacing her damaged belongings – it asked her if she wanted to accept this or raise a claim with its insurers, which was reasonable
    2. £100 for the disruption caused by the move into temporary accommodation
    3. £100 for not acknowledging her mental health and wellbeing at stage 1
    4. £50 for a breakdown in its communication
    5. £1,000 for the overall impact on her caused by the delays in it resolving the issues raised
21. The resident told the landlord the same day that it had caused her financial difficulty to have to move to temporary accommodation outside of the county. We have seen no evidence she previously made it aware of this financial difficulty. The landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate this, so we have not considered this as part of this investigation. We have made a recommendation above for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this further.
22. On 8 August 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it would complete some work in the kitchen and outhouse. It told her that cracks in the re-plastered walls and ceilings were a normal part of the drying process and not a sign of poor workmanship. However, the resident has told us that these cracks are significant and continuing to get worse. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out an inspection, or that the significance of the cracks was considered by a suitably qualified person, which was not appropriate.
23. It has been 2 years since the resident first reported repairs issues, some of which remain outstanding. During this time there have been significant periods of delay and repairs carried out to an unacceptable standard, causing a great deal of distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation in June 2025 went some way to recognising this. However, it was not appropriate that it did not make this offer until more than 12 months after it carried out significant work and it moved the resident out of the property. It is also not appropriate that the landlord has still failed to demonstrate that it has completed all work to a reasonable standard and that outstanding cracks have not been investigated.
24. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2,323.86, which replaces the landlord’s previous offer. This is to recognise its continued failure to resolve all repairs issues and has been awarded in line with our remedies guidance.

25. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 18 working days (2 February 2024 to 28 February 2024)
    2. it updated the resident in writing when it needed more time to investigate and met the extended deadline – which was in line with its complaints policy
    3. it responded at stage 2 with 17 working days (19 March 2024 to 12 April 2024) – which was in line with its complaints policy
26. While the landlord did need to extend the deadline at stage 1, it did so in line with its policy, and it apologised for the delay in its response, which was reasonable. There were no unnecessary or unexplained delays during its complaints process.

Learning

27. The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time the resident raised her complaint did not set out clear timescales for repairs. However, we can see that the landlord has since update its repairs policy to include clear timescales for each repair priority, which is a positive step.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not keep good records of inspections carried out, making it difficult for it to demonstrate that it took reasonable actions to resolve the issues reported by the resident.
29. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlord may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

30. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.