MHS Homes Ltd (202343105)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 2 children. She told the landlord she has complex mental health problems and dyslexia. She said one of her children is autistic and has ADHD.
2. The resident complained 5 times to the landlord. She initially complained about its handling of repairs in her property. The repairs included problems with woodworm, a leak, and damp and mould. The landlord temporarily rehoused the resident whilst it did the works, and she complained about its handling of this. The landlord completed the repairs and the resident complained about the standard of them, and the overall compensation it offered.

What the complaint is about

3. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs and compensation claim.
   2. The complaints.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs and compensation claim.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and compensation claim

5. The landlord acknowledged its service failed within 4 of its responses to the resident’s 5 complaints she raised over a 12-month period. It rehoused her whilst completing the repairs and offered her compensation. Its compensation offers went some way towards remedying her complaints. However, we found its responses to her claim for damaged belongings were unclear.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. We found several issues with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 5 complaints. Some of its responses were not in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also sent contradictory information about its handling of historic issues and failed to escalate the resident’s fifth complaint.

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.

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.

7. The resident only escalated 1 of her 5 complaints to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. We do not normally investigate complaints which have not completed both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. In this case we found failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. As such, we used our discretion to investigate all 5 complaints the resident made between 19 October 2023 to 1 October 2024.
8. The landlord acknowledged within 4 of its complaint responses to the resident that its service failed in some way. Such as on 26 February 2024 when it said it should have completed her repairs, sooner. When a landlord admits it got things wrong, our role is to establish whether its offers to put things right resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether what it did was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. In August 2024 the landlord confirmed it completed the major works, which included reconfiguring the layout of her kitchen. The resident said she was happy the repairs were done, apart from some snagging issues which the landlord booked in. However, she was unhappy with its overall compensation offer. She told us the issues, which included being in temporary accommodation for 4 months, affected her mental wellbeing. She said the landlord damaged her personal belongings, when doing the repairs. The landlord gave her details of how she could claim from its internal insurance team. She complained about its handling of her claim on 4 September 2024.
10. It was fair the landlord acknowledged its failures handling the repairs and offered the resident compensation. However, we found the landlord’s communication with the resident about its compensation offers, and what she would need to claim for from its internal claims team unclear and confusing. When it responded to her complaint on 26 February 2024it offered her £500to replace the flooring and increased this to£700 in March 2024.In July 2024 it handled the claim for flooring under its claims process and increased the amount to £1,100.
11. The landlord’s internal communications said it should have handled the resident’s claim for damaged flooring under its claims process. However, it did not explain this to the resident. It is unclear why the landlord handled the resident’s overall claim for compensation for her damaged belongings separately and not within its complaints process. Its policy says it will consider “quantifiable loss payments “which includes replacement of lost or damaged possessions when investigating complaints. It does not explain it has a separate claims process.
12. The landlord’s overall compensation offer was £3,020.13, broken down as follows:
    1. £250 discretionary payment made on 11 July 2024.
    2. £750 discretionary payment made on 18 July 2024 (for the upset caused).
    3. £250 compensation for a decoration pack (it said it did not give the resident one when she moved in).
    4. £1,100 for new flooring.
    5. £350 towards expenses whilst in temporary housing.
    6. £320.13 towards evidenced expenses whilst in temporary housing.

The landlord also offered to purchase a cooker to the value of £350 for the resident and to pay for therapy costs, after it received proof of these.

13. The landlord’s remedies, including its compensation offers, went some way to resolving the resident’s complaints. However, we found service failure as it did not clearly communicate the outcome of the resident’s claim for damaged belongings. This included her claim that her furniture and bedding were damaged whilst her property was being repaired. It also failed to respond to her escalated complaint about this issue on 30 October 2024, when she said, “we still have no furniture to sit on”. This left her fifth complaint unresolved.

14. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 October 2023 about its staff conduct whilst carrying out repairs. She complained the next day about the landlord’s communication during the repairs, and the potential impact on her family’s health. The landlord recorded these as 2 separate complaints. This was in line with its policy, but not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This recommends landlords incorporate new issues into one response if the stage 1 response has not yet been issued and it would not unreasonably delay the complaint.
15. The landlord sent its response to the resident’s third complaint outside of its policy timescales. This says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It acknowledged the complaint on 18 June 2024 and sent its response 18 working days later on 11 July 2024. In an internal email, the landlord said it extended its response time, but there is no evidence it explained this to the resident. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
16. The landlord also failed to follow its policy when responding to the resident’s historic complaints. Its policy says it will normally handle complaints which were raised with 12 months of the issue happening. Its response on 18 June 2024 aligned with its policy when it said her complaints about events in 2018 and 2021 were excluded. However, this contradicted its earlier complaint response of 25 October 2023, when it acknowledged its poor handling of its voids process before she moved into the property in 2018.
17. The landlord’s mishandling of the resident’s historic complaints caused her unnecessary confusion and upset. On 19 June 2024 she made a Subject Access Request as she said the landlord was being dishonest. The landlord apologised about its handling of some of the complaint handling issues. But it failed to fully recognise all of them and to compensate the resident. As such, it did not remedy its complaint handling failures.
18. We found further failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fifth complaint on 4 September 2024 concerning the landlord’s handling of her compensation claim. The landlord agreed to pay for some of the resident’s expenses whilst she was in temporary housing, including taxi fares. On 30 October 2024 said she was unhappy with its response to her claim. The landlord failed to escalate this complaint to its second stage. This was not in line with its policy, or the Code.
19. The landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its complaint handling failures and to remedy this. As we identified several issues with its complaint handling, we found maladministration in this case. We ordered the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the resident’s time and trouble raising her complaints.

Learning

20. The landlord made some positive attempts to resolve the resident’s complaints. This included acknowledging the impact the resident said the issues had on her mental health and wellbeing. It agreed to reimburse the resident for therapy sessions she said she had, upon her evidence of these payments. However, it failed to escalate her complaint about her claim for her damaged items, therefore it did not resolve her final complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord acknowledged gaps in its record keeping when it told the resident it had not updated all the notes of its conversations with staff. We found its record keeping was good in parts; it provided comprehensive evidence of its contact with the resident. Although its recording of the resident’s complaints and offers of compensation could have been managed better. It could have recorded what it had compensated for to avoid duplication with its claims process.

 Communication

22. We found the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was sometimes unclear. Such as its response to her about purchasing a new cooker and its compensation offer to replace her flooring. It acknowledged its communication could be improved in its complaint response. It was also confusing when it generated a new reference number for the resident’s escalated complaint in February 2024, rather than keeping the same number it had allocated for its stage 1 complaint.
23. There were positives in the landlord’s overall communication with the resident. We found the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s emails. Its responses were also empathetic. It paid due regard to the resident’s concerns about her ability to read the information it sent. It drafted a table which explained what her outstanding repairs were and acknowledged she had said this would be easier for her to read.