East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202329800)

Decision
Case ID	202329800
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	East Midlands Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident moved into a new build property and reported cracks in the kitchen floor tiles. He has complained that the landlord delayed responding to his concerns and repaired the tiles instead of replacing them.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Damaged floor tiles.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the damaged floor tiles.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the damaged floor tiles

4. The landlord’s response did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident. It apologised and identified learning from the complaint but did not offer any financial redress.

Response to the complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement was slightly delayed which had no impact on the resident or outcome. The landlord’s following actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £80 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and delay in providing a clear response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 July 2023	The resident moved into the property and reported there were cracks in the kitchen floor tiles.
5 September 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the delays in resolving the damaged floor tiles. He was unhappy the landlord repaired the tiles instead of replacing them.
27 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for its poor communication. It said the cracks were minor cosmetic issues and the repairs were satisfactory. It would not replace the tiles, explaining that in doing so may cause further damage or a colour mismatch. The landlord identified learning from the complaint, including staff training on record keeping and communication.
28 September 2023	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He disagreed with the landlord’s decision to not replace the tiles.
1 November 2023	The landlord issued its final response. It repeated its stage 1 response and reiterated that it would not replace the tiles.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 25 January 2024 the resident referred his complaint to us. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He asked for new tiles and compensation to resolve his complaint.
31 October 2024	The resident moved out of the property.

 

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the damaged floor tiles.
Finding	Service failure

6. On 4 July 2023 the resident moved into a new build property with a 12-month defect period and completed a sign up inspection. During this time, the property developer may be responsible for certain repairs. Under its New Homes Guide, the landlord should log defects with the developer. At sign up, the landlord and resident identified 1 cracked kitchen floor tile. An hour later, the resident reported 2 more cracked floor tiles. On 7 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident a defect list that excluded the floor tiles, and raised a repair for 1 damaged tile.
7. The landlord did not record why it raised a repair instead of contacting the developer as required under its New Home Guide. Recording decisions is essential to avoid potential delays and disputes later. It also failed to respond to the additional damaged tiles. This may have left the resident feeling his concerns were overlooked.
8. On 14 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord said the contractor would contact him directly. This was not consistent with its Repairs policy, which requires it to keep residents updated. The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord, causing him unnecessary inconvenience. Providing a clear timeframe at the outset would have avoided this. The landlord also missed the chance to explain what the resident could expect from the contractor’s visit.
9. On 10 August 2023 the contractor repaired all 3 damaged floor tiles, even though the landlord had only raised a repair for 1 tile. This inconsistency suggests a possible oversight in contractor management. The repairs were completed 24 working days after the job had been raised. The landlord’s policy does not set out a set timeframe for non-urgent repairs. As the repairs did not pose a safety risk, the contractor attended in a reasonable timeframe.
10. That day, the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the repairs and asked it to replace the tiles. He was concerned the repair was temporary. He received no response and contacted the landlord again on 2 further occasions. This shows a continued pattern of poor communication, which likely added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
11. On 5 September 2023 the resident logged a complaint after the landlord said it would not replace the tiles because they were not on the earlier defect list. On 13 September 2023 he added that he was concerned that the cracks might return after the defect period ended. He explained that as a shared owner, he would be then liable for repairing the flooring under the terms of his leasehold agreement.
12. On 27 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the cracks were cosmetic and it was satisfied with the repair quality. It confirmed the original inspection found 1 cracked tile, but it had repaired all the damaged tiles. It apologised for not logging the additional cracks, explaining this was due to poor internal communication. The landlord explained replacing the tiles could cause further damage and it would be difficult to colour match the tiles. It identified learning around its communication and record keeping.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself about the repair quality and explain why it would not replace the tiles. It had taken learning from the complaint, which is important for improvement. However, the landlord did not explain why it chose not to report the issue to the developer. Its response was also unclear as to why all the tiles were repaired, despite only raising a repair for 1 tile. The landlord overlooked the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident, who had to contact the landlord 4 times over a 3-month period. Its Compensation policy allows payments of up to £250 for repeated failures, such as poor communication. The landlord missed the opportunity to offer compensation. Compensation would have been a fair way to redress the resident in this circumstance.
14. On 28 September 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response and decision not to replace the tiles. The landlord responded on 1 November 2023. It said its decision remained unchanged. The landlord missed another chance to explain its initial approach and offer the resident compensation.
15. After referring his complaint to us, the landlord explained it chose to complete and pay for the repairs because the developer would likely reject them. It said proving liability can be difficult. It is unclear whether the landlord communicated this to the resident, who no longer lives at the property. Had it done so, the resident would have understood from the outset whether the tiles would be replaced and why.
16. Overall, the landlord’s response went some way in putting things right. It apologised, clarified why it would not replace the tiles, and took learning from the complaint. However, it did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by failing to manage the resident’s expectations and respond in a reasonable timeframe. This would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to address his concerns. We have made an order of £80 compensation which is in line with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The response to the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
18. The landlord has a published Complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
19. On 5 September 2023 the resident logged a complaint. The landlord acknowledged it on 13 September 2023, 1 day late against the 5-day timescale in its policy and the Code. This minor delay was a shortcoming but did not cause the resident distress or inconvenience.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023, 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This met the timeframes in its policy and the Code.
21. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 October 2023, 5 working days later. It issued its stage 2 response on 1 November 2023. This was within the 20-working day timescale required by its policy and the Code.
22. Overall, the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement was late. This did not affect the resident. The landlord went on to handle the complaint appropriately and in a timely manner. Therefore, we have not found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Learning

23. Clear and early communication is essential for managing residents’ expectations. When landlords explain what will happen, when, and why, residents understand the process and the reasons behind any decisions. This transparency helps build trust and confidence in the landlord’s service delivery and helps reduce uncertainty.

Communication

24. Acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.