Connexus Homes Limited (202510185)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property as a direct let in November 2024. She has vulnerabilities, including significant ill health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with:
   1. Concerns about the condition of the property when the resident moved in.
   2. Repairs to the bathroom and damage caused.
   3. Concerns about the safety of the garden.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with concerns about the condition of the property when the resident moved in.
   2. Service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with repairs to the bathroom and damage caused.
   3. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with concerns about the safety of the garden.
   4. Service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found that:

5. The landlord did not let the property in a condition that met its voids standard. Because of this, the resident spent time chasing it to do repairs, which caused her inconvenience.

6. The landlord accepted responsibility for damage caused to a carpet following repairs to the bathroom and gave a refund. It also offered reasonable compensation for delays in repairing the shower. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in repairing the toilet.
7. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord doing work to the garden between February and August 2025.
8. There were delays in sending both complaint responses, and the landlord did not fully respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The compensation offered did not reflect all of these failures.

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.

9. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will make sure all void properties meet the Decent Homes Standard.
10. The landlord did a void inspection of the property on 19 July 2024. The inspection recommended work that included repairing silicone in the shower and clearing debris from the garden. We have seen the landlord placed an order for materials to do work but have not seen a record showing whether it did the work. Because of this, we cannot comment on whether it did all recommended repairs and followed its policy commitments in relation to void properties.
11. However, on 27 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had had problems with the property since moving in. These included the boiler not working on the day she moved in. She mentioned problems with the bathroom and garden, which we have considered later in this report. The landlord contacted its voids team the same day and asked it to look at the concerns the resident had raised.
12. On 2 December 2024 the resident went to the landlord’s office and complained it had not done work before she moved to the property. The landlord noted the resident was upset about the condition of her home.
13. The landlord spoke with the resident on 3 December 2024. Its record of the conversation noted that she had moved to the property as a direct let because of her health. It said the property was in “disarray” and there was “badly managed workmanship”. It noted the resident wanted it to fix the issues.
14. In its complaint response on 2 January 2025, the landlord referred to a leak from the shower. It apologised and said it would visit on 3 January 2025 to look at the damage caused. However, it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at this point. The associated complaint handling will be assessed later in this report..
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 January 2025, as she felt the landlord had not listened to her concerns about the condition of the property. In its final response on 11 February 2025, the landlord accepted the resident’s home did not meet its voids standard when she moved in. It did not give details of why it had made this decision. It also did not say what it was going to do to put things right.
16. It is our view that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in. This is because the landlord did take the opportunity of the stage 1 response to progress the resident’s concerns. When it accepted it had not met its voids standard in its final response, it did not explain why or say what it would do next. Although we cannot comment on what parts of the property did not meet the voids standard, it is clear there were faults from the day the resident moved in. The number of repairs the resident reported confirms this. An assessment of hazards in May 2025 also confirmed some category 2 hazards and other repairs.
17. The landlord was aware of the resident’s significant health issues and the vulnerability of her children, which had previously led to it making an offer of a direct let. Because the landlord did not let the property in a condition that met its voids standard, the resident spent time chasing the landlord to do repairs, which caused her inconvenience. She was concerned for the safety of her children, which caused her distress. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £200 for distress and inconvenience caused.

18. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days.
19. On 15 November 2024 the resident reported that the toilet was making a loud noise. The landlord attended on 18 November 2024. It is our view that a response within 3 days for this report was reasonable. This is because we have seen no suggestion the toilet was not working at this time, and the landlord dealt with it as an urgent repair.
20. The resident complained on 2 December 2024 about a leak from the shower and damage caused to a carpet. She said she was worried about water in the electrics, and the bathroom tiles were loose. She again said the toilet made a loud noise.
21. The landlord appears to have attended the same day and found a leak from the shower. It did a temporary repair to prevent further leaks. It also found the tiles needed regrouting. The resident told us the landlord did work on the shower after she moved in and it did not do it properly, which caused the leak. We have not seen a record of this work and cannot comment on what the landlord did. However, we have seen the landlord accepted responsibility for the leak in its final response.
22. In its complaint response on 2 January 2025, the landlord apologised to the resident for the effect the leak had on her home. It said it had made the shower safe and would visit on 3 January 2025 to assess damage. Following the visit, it raised an order on 6 January 2025 to fit a hygiene board.
23. In her escalation request on 13 January 2025, the resident said she had reported problems with the toilet 3 times. She said when she moved in, the shower did not work, and the landlord came to fix it. After this there was a leak from the shower into her daughter’s bedroom, which damaged a carpet. She wanted compensation for the damage.
24. At 6:32pm on 14 January 2025, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had reported that she could not use her toilet at 11:25am that day. She said the landlord logged the report as an emergency, and when she called again at 3:30pm, it told her it would attend by 4:00pm. She said no-one had turned up. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 January 2025 to ask her if it had fixed the toilet. When she replied the same day and said no-one turned up, the landlord arranged an appointment for 16 July 2025.
25. In its final response on 11 February 2025, the landlord accepted the carpet was damaged due to its error. It said it would refund the £595.40 cost of the carpet. It also agreed that despite appointments, it had not completed the bathroom repairs when the resident escalated her complaint. It said it had made a follow-up appointment to complete works for 25 February 2025. It offered £150 for delays to the repairs. It did not refer to the missed appointment to repair the toilet on 14 January 2025.
26. An inspection in May 2025 made recommendations for further repairs in the bathroom: In November 2025 the resident told us there were still outstanding repairs in the bathroom.
27. Overall, we have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with repairs to the bathroom and damage caused. It was reasonable for the landlord to accept responsibility for damage and give a refund. The landlord also reasonably offered compensation for delays in repairing the shower. However, it did not acknowledge the failure to repair the toilet for 2 days following the report on 14 January 2025. This delay caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, who has significant health issues. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £845.40 compensation, inclusive of the £745.40 already offered.

28. On 27 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had been struggling with the garden since she moved in. She said the garden was a danger to her children. The landlord contacted its voids team to ask if it could look at the issues the resident had raised. We have not seen a response to this request.
29. In her complaint on 2 December 2024, the resident said the garden was not safe. The landlord noted she was upset about the condition of the garden.
30. In its complaint response on 2 January 2025, the landlord did not refer to the resident’s concerns about the garden.
31. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said the landlord had not listened to her concerns. She said the garden was not safe or suitable for her young children. She said she had moved to the property as a direct let because of her health, and her health meant she could not sort out the garden herself. She felt the landlord should not have given her a property with a garden in this condition.
32. In its final response on 11 February 2025, the landlord said it had removed some debris after it received the complaint but had not resolved the resident’s concerns due to poor communication. It said it would contact the resident by 14 February 2025 to arrange an appointment to assess the garden.
33. Following the final response, the landlord arranged an inspection of the garden for 13 February 2025. We have not seen an outcome from this but understand from the landlord that there was a delay in authorising the work. On 22 May 2025, the landlord did an assessment of hazards at the property. This confirmed category 2 hazards in the garden.
34. In November 2025 the resident told us the garden was a “death trap” when she moved in and was not safe for her children. She said the landlord should have sorted it before she moved in. She said an inspection took place in February 2025, with a plan to do work in April 2025, but there was a delay while the landlord waited for approval. She said she escalated this to senior managers at the landlord and explained her health and family situation. She said this prompted the landlord to do work on the garden in August 2025. She said she was now happy with the garden, but it had been “a battle”, and she had had to speak to lots of people to get things done. She said safety was important and because of the delays her children had not been able to use the garden.
35. Overall, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with concerns about the safety of the garden. Although it removed some debris after it received the complaint in December 2024, it did not take any further action until after it sent its final response in February 2025. In its complaint response the landlord apologised and accepted there had been poor communication. It was reasonable for it to arrange an inspection as part of its final response. This took place on 13 February 2025 and the resident told us work was planned for April 2025.
36. However, work did not take place until August 2025. We accept that some works need authorisation because of cost. However, there were missed opportunities to do an earlier inspection and then a delay between February and August 2025 (a period of 6 months), which led to distress and inconvenience because of the loss of use of the garden.
37. The resident moved to the property as a direct let because of her significant health issues and her children’s vulnerabilities. Due to her circumstances, she was unable to deal with the hazards in the garden, which meant she was reluctant to let her children use the garden because of concerns for their safety. This caused her distress. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to works on the garden. This is made up of £50 per month for the period between April and August 2025.

38. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
39. The resident complained on 2 December 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 January 2025, which was 21 working days later. In its response the landlord did not refer to all the issues the resident complained about.
40. Because of this, the resident escalated her complaint on 6 January 2025. However, the landlord was slow to acknowledge the escalation and did not send its final response until 11 February 2025, which was 26 working days later. It offered £50 compensation for failures in how it dealt with the complaint in its final response.
41. We have found there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. There were delays in sending both responses, but more significantly the landlord did not fully respond to the complaint at stage 1. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation, inclusive of the £50 offered in the final response. The landlord’s recognition of failure and offer of compensation has prevented a finding of maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

42. We have found there were lapses in the landlord’s record keeping as there was no record of work done following the void inspection.