We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202337179)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337179

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

25 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks and resultant damage to personal belongings.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has a registered disability recorded by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported that her boiler was leaking on 15 February 2023. She said that the leak had saturated 2 bath towels. On the same day, an operative attended to the leak and recommended another visit to assess it properly.
  3. On 24 August 2023 the resident reported that the boiler leak had become worse. She said her bedding and clothing had been damaged from the water. The next day the landlord created a work order to install a new boiler and installed it on 31 August 2023.
  4. The resident raised her complaint on 17 October 2023. She requested contact from the landlord in relation to her damaged bedding, clothes, and towels. She also requested compensation as they were saturated and mouldy. She also said that she did not want to claim on her insurance as that increases the premium and she would have to pay an excess fee. The resident chased the landlord for a reply to her complaint on 24 November 2023. The landlord responded on 27 November 2023 to clarify her concerns would be dealt with as a complaint.
  5. On 1 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and requested an extension of time to respond to her complaint until 12 January 2024.
  6. On 12 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it had attended to callouts within its policy timeframes, it had attempted to repair the leak, and this had had a relatively low impact. It further said that it did not compensate for damage to personal belongings and that tenants were made aware to be covered by their own content’s insurance. It offered £50 compensation for any inconvenience and loss caused to the resident.
  7. On 02 February 2024, the resident said to us that she wanted to escalate the complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process but the landlord had ignored her social media contact. She said the landlord had attended 3–4 times without successfully repairing the boiler where she had to put a bucket under the boiler to catch the water across 6 months until it was fixed/replaced. We forwarded her escalation on 28 February 2024.
  8. On 19 March 2024, the landlord supplied its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed its position at stage 1, but increased its offer of compensation to £100 as a good will gesture for the resident to replace the damaged items.
  9. The landlord conducted a further review of the complaint and communicated the outcome to the resident on 18 October 2024. It acknowledged that it had relied on incorrect information in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses and apologised for this error as well as the resulting delays. It upheld her complaint. In doing so, it offered a total of £875. This consisted of £500 for failure to repair in 28 days, £100 for damage to personal belongings (which was offered at stage 2), £250 for failures in the complaints process relating to timescales, and £25 for its failure to acknowledge the complaint within policy timescales.
  10. When the resident approached us, she said she was not treated with respect by the landlord and its repair practises were ineffective. More recently she said to us that the floorboards had rotten under the boiler from the leak and she had to pay someone to remove them.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues identified.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy provides that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
  3. The resident initially reported the leak from the boiler on 15 February 2023. The landlord attended on the same day which was in accordance with its emergency repair timeframe. The landlord clarified in its review letter of 18 October 2024 that the operative who attended on 15 February 2023 noted that the leak was containable, but that a follow up appointment was required. We have seen evidence of this note in the landlord’s file. However, no further action was taken by the landlord apart from a routine servicing of the boiler on 9 August 2023.
  4. The resident reported in her complaint that the leak slowly continued across this period (15 February 2023 – 24 August 2023) and inconvenienced her by having to change buckets of water every 4 days. While we have not seen any other evidence of her reports to the landlord, the landlord did not dispute this. She reported to the landlord that the leak had become worse on 24 August 2023 and was not containable. The landlord attended on the same day. However, this was 6 months after the initial leak and as it had not attended after its initial appointment, it had far surpassed its 28-day policy timeframe for a routine repair to take place.
  5. While the landlord did act quickly in August 2023 to repair the leak and identified the need for a new boiler, the delay prior to this was unreasonable. If the landlord had attended the repair after the initial visit within 28 days, this may have prevented further water damage to the resident’s belongings and flooring.
  6. The landlord in its stage 1 complaint response said that it had attended to the leak within its policy timeframes. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s initial report of the leak in February 2023. This was a significant oversight and meant the landlord did not consider all the information available to it in making its decision. It also omitted to consider part of its complaint policy which refers to damage to personal belongings, and instead referred the complainant to claim under her own contents insurance. This meant its decision was not adequately weighed and was misinformed. While the landlord did offer £50 compensation for inconvenience and financial loss, this was not enough to recognise its omissions or the impact to the resident. Given the above, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not review its repair logs and its compensation policy in reaching its stage 1 decision.
  7. At stage 2 it was appropriate of the landlord to increase its compensation amount based on what the resident had communicated was damaged from the ongoing leak. However, it confirmed its position from stage 1. As such, the information considered at this stage again did not include the full repair records. The landlord missed another opportunity to review matters properly. This cursory review caused additional frustration to the resident.
  8. It is encouraging that the landlord completed a subsequent review of the complaint in October 2024. This review did recognise that it had not made fully informed decisions, and the resident was impacted by the delays in repair and its failings. It was appropriate to recognise these failings, apologise, and offer compensation for these. In this case, the offer of £600 for repairs and damage (£875 total, including its complaints handling failures) is at the high end of the maladministration range in the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance. This means that the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience she had experienced by its failure to resolve the leak over the 6 months period.
  9. However, the landlord’s review did not advise of adequate learnings to improve service delivery and prevent further failings. The landlord only said it had referred the complaint back to its relevant colleagues and it had increased its staff numbers by 2. But it did not advise what it had done to prevent future failings occurring that were specific to the case. It is also questionable why the review was initiated 7 months after its stage 2 response, at which point the complaint had already been referred to us. Given this, an order has been made below to ensure further targeted learnings are taken from this investigation.
  10. Given the landlord admitted, in its October 2024 review, that the resulting damage to the resident’s personal belongings was due to its delay in attending to the repair, there were clear missed opportunities at stage 1 and stage 2 for the landlord to alleviate her concerns and to account for the damage, inconvenience caused, and her vulnerabilities. It could have reasonably restored to her original position during its complaints process.
  11. Furthermore, the landlord’s review was prompted by the resident’s complaint to us, this should not be needed. The landlord should consider all information available to it to make balanced decisions and consider its policies within its complaint process. For these reasons, we have found service failure.
  12. The resident also reported to us that the floorboards had been damaged from the leak and she  had to pay for their removal. As we have not seen this issue being reported to the landlord, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to clarify her concerns. If the resident remains dissatisfied following this contact she may wish to follow the landlord’s formal complaints process before we can look at this issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident attempted to raise her concerns with the landlord on 17 October 2023 by message. The resident chased the landlord again on 24 November 2023 asking for a reply to her message. On 27 November 2023 the landlord responded to the resident and clarified that she wanted her concerns raised as a complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to clarify that the resident wanted her concerns raised as a complaint, however, it took 30 working days to do so. The landlord should accept any expressions of dissatisfaction in any form and act to respond to these in a timely manner. This delay and lack of communication was unreasonable. It meant the resident’s concerns were not responded to in a timely manner and there were delays in logging the complaint and progressing it.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 December 2023, this was 34 working days after her complaint of 17 October 2023. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe of 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint. Additionally the landlord on 22 December 2023 (21 days later), sought an extension of 10 working days to supply its response. This was again contrary to its complaints policy, which requires an extension request to be made within 10 working days of acknowledgement. These actions were unreasonable and caused further delay.
  3. The resident contacted us on 2 February 2024 and stated she had not heard back from the landlord regarding her escalation request. We have not seen evidence of the date the resident requested escalation before coming to us. As such, it is difficult to assess the timeframes for the landlord’s stage 2 response. We forwarded her complaint to the landlord on 28 February 2024 and requested a response.
  4. The landlord’s final response was dated 19 March 2024, which was within the timeframes provided by the Service. However, the resident advised us she had not received it and we chased the landlord on 20 March 2024. On 10 May 2024, the landlord advised us it had sent its stage 2 response letter in the mail to the resident on 19 March 2024, but it must not have reached the resident. It is unclear the reason the resident did not receive the landlord’s final response. However, we cannot hold the landlord accountable for these delays as they could have been caused by other factors or other services, outside of the landlord’s control.
  5. The landlord did however act to apologise for its complaint handling failures on 18 October 2024. It recognised the delays across its complaints process, failures to provide an in depth investigation and failure to log her complaint in a timely manner. It also acknowledged the stress and impact it had caused to the resident. It was appropriate to recognise the impact its complaint handling failures had on the resident, and for it to offer compensation of £250 for the disruption and stress caused. It was appropriate to also acknowledge its failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales, and to offer £25 for this.
  6. While there were multiple failings across the complaint the landlord did recognise, apologise, and compensate for these. It also took on accountability for its complaint handling failures which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, this was 7 months outside of its complaint’s process and as such it missed an opportunity to provide a reasonable remedy in a timely manner. The total amount of compensation offered of £275 was reasonable despite it being higher than what we would have considered in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and resultant damage to personal belongings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay a total compensation of £875 (if not paid already) to the resident it offered before this investigation for its response to the resident’s reports of leaks comprising:
      1. £600 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by its repairs handling failures.
      2.  £275 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is to conduct a targeted review of what went wrong and take steps to improve effective service delivery, and report back to the us on these findings.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord contact the resident to clarify if the flooring has been fixed to a suitable standard, and if not to advise her of next steps to restore the flooring.