Community Gateway Association Limited (202404869)

Decision
Case ID	202404869
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Community Gateway Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	5 December 2025

Background

1. The resident reported issues with the ensuite and bathroom extractor fans, and damp on the main bathroom wall. She believed the landlord was responsible for the repairs as she reported them before the new-build defects period ended. During that period, the landlord escalated repairs to the property developer, which we have referred to as its contractor.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the extractor fans.
   2. Reports of damp in the bathroom.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the extractor fans.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the bathroom.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the extractor fans

6. The landlord responded appropriately to the concerns reported in November 2023. However, its poor record keeping has meant we cannot confirm it managed the earlier reports appropriately.

Reports of damp in the bathroom

7. Due to poor record keeping, we cannot establish if the landlord investigated whether a latent defect caused the issues and whether it linked to the earlier leaks.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the complaint appropriately and in line with the required timescales.

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 14 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £425 made up of: The £100 originally offered in its complaint responses for its handling of repairs to the extractor fans, if it has not already. A further £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the extractor fans. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp in the bathroom. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 January 2026
3	Order – extractor fan The landlord must: Contact the resident to discuss the outstanding issues she has reported to us. It may wish to arrange an inspection of the fans as part of this. It must then write to the resident and share a copy with us. This should include: Its intentions regarding any repairs required to the extractor fans. This follows its previous advice set out in its complaint responses for her to report further issues with the fans.	No later than 14 January 2026
4	Order – damp in the bathroom The landlord must: Inspect whether any latent defects are present in the bathroom. It should make reasonable attempts to arrange an inspection with its contractor when doing so, however, the landlord must inspect the bathroom regardless of the contractor’s attendance. Inspect the WC ceiling below the bathroom and consider whether any latent defect related to the bathroom caused or contributed to the staining. Provide a copy of the inspection report to us. It must then write to the resident and share a copy with us. This should include: Whether there are any latent defects with the bathroom. The most likely cause of the damp within the bathroom. Whether the landlord (or its contractor) is responsible to repair or resolve the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 11 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 March 2023	The resident reported a leak in the ensuite bathroom. She also said the ensuite extractor fan leaked.
19 June 2023	The “end of defect” inspection was completed which recommended replacing the ensuite and bathroom extractor fans. The contractor did so on 23 June 2023.
November 2023	The resident reported mould had appeared on the bathroom wall. The landlord asked the contractor to investigate this and it repaired the shower head and cleaned and treated the mould.
December 2023	The resident reported further staining on the bathroom wall. The landlord asked the contractor to investigate this, but it declined to do so as the defects period had ended.
8 January 2024	The landlord inspected the ensuite and main bathroom.
4 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She felt the bathroom was of poor standard because of the leaks. She was unhappy with the lack of updates following the landlord’s inspection. She added she was awaiting repairs to the 2 extractor fans.
20 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It said: It was her responsibility to complete the repairs under the terms of the lease agreement, and it gave her advice of how to find suitable contractors for the works. The contractor had previously replaced the 2 extractor fans in June 2023. Following its inspection of the ensuite in January 2024, it completed further works to improve the performance of the ensuite extractor fan in February 2024. It apologised for not completing the extractor fan repairs “right first time” when it replaced these in June 2023. It offered her £100 compensation for not identifying this sooner. She should report any further issues, but it believed the works would resolve the damp issues in the ensuite. It would learn lessons from this by ensuring it checks the ducting on all future new-build properties.
26 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said her main concern was the leak appearing on the bathroom wall. She felt this occurred due to poor workmanship when building the property. She asked it to cover the repair costs to fix this.
13 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It said: She reported the bathroom wall issue after the defect period ended. As such, it was her responsibility to repair, and it reiterated its advice about finding a reputable tradesperson. She could consider making a claim for the repairs through her home insurance policy or the landlord’s own insurers. It gave advice of how to make a claim if she wished to.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She felt it should resolve the damp in the bathroom because it did not address her concerns during the defects period. She felt the issues have occurred because of a fault with the construction of the bathroom.

 

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 handling of repairs to the extractor fans
Finding	Service failure

9. The landlord’s record keeping impacted our ability to assess its handling of the extractor fan repairs. The resident reported a leak through the ensuite extractor fan on 29 March 2023. There is no evidence it acted at the time, which was a failing. The initial complaint response referred to a further report in June 2023, and stated its contractor attended but found no leak. We have not seen evidence of the report or the appointment, but the resident did not dispute this occurred.
10. After the end of defect inspection, the landlord’s contractor replaced the bathroom and ensuite extractor fans in June 2023. It is unclear if this was related to the earlier reports, but it was appropriate to replace the fans to resolve any identified faults.
11. On 9 November 2023, after the defects period ended, the resident reported mould around the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord’s contractor attended on 30 November 2023. It did not find any defects with the fan, but it cleaned and treated the mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the contractor to inspect this in a timely manner. Especially given the resident had reported similar issues during the defects period, and it needed to check for any latent defects.
12. The landlord later inspected the property on 8 January 2024. It has not provided us with evidence of this inspection, but it refers to this within the complaints process. Due to the lack of available records, we do not know why it attended, what it inspected or what it found. We also cannot find that it updated the resident. This further shows the impact of its poor record keeping.
13. The landlord said it found the ducting needed repairs as it did not achieve full performance. It said it repaired this on 6 February 2024. This was broadly in line with its 20-working day routine repairs timescale set out in its repairs policy. It apologised for not identifying this issue sooner and committed to checking ducting on all new-build properties to prevent similar problems. This was a positive reflection, showing it was committed to learning from its mistakes.
14. Within the landlord’s response, it said it hoped the works would resolve the ceiling damp and asked the resident to report further issues. The resident told us mould remains on both the ensuite and bathroom ceilings at the time of our investigation, which she believes relates to the extractor fans. It is unclear whether she reported this or what the landlord’s position is. As such, we have made a relevant order above.
15. In summary, the landlord managed the extractor fan repairs from November 2023 appropriately. It checked for defects, acknowledged failings in not checking the ducting sooner, completed repairs promptly and offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the landlord’s poor record keeping has meant we cannot assess whether it responded appropriately to the concerns raised in March and June 2023.
16. Given the poor records and the uncertainty about how the landlord managed the earlier reports, we have found service failure. The landlord must pay a further £75 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is a proportionate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which caused some detriment.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the bathroom
Finding	Maladministration

17. The resident reported a leak under the bath in the main bathroom on 3 January 2023. On the same day, the landlord asked its contractor to investigate this as an urgent defect. This reflected the home user guide’s advice to report water issues “right away.” However, there is no evidence of what happened following this. The poor records have meant we cannot confirm it managed this repair appropriately. This was a failing.
18. After the defects period ended, the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom on 9 November 2023. The landlord asked its contractor to inspect this, which was appropriate. However, the landlord’s records are confusing. Records suggest the contractor attended twice in November 2023 to inspect a damp patch on the bathroom wall and to repair the shower head. It was appropriate for it to investigate this. However, the evidence does not demonstrate whether it completed a thorough investigation and assessed whether the cause of the staining was a latent defect or not. Additionally, the lack of detailed records has meant it is unclear whether it considered if this was related to the previous leak reported in January 2023.
19. In December 2023, after the landlord advised the resident to sand and repaint the stained wall, she said the staining had worsened. The landlord asked its contractor to inspect the issue as it was concerned this may be due to a latent defect in the bathroom. While this was reasonable, there is no evidence of what happened after this.
20. Internally, in preparing information for our investigation, the landlord noted that the contractor later refused to investigate the issue. This was because the contractor said the issues were not raised during the defect period. The landlord also referred to this within its initial complaint response.
21. The landlord then told the resident that she was responsible for completing repairs under her lease agreement. While this advice is in line with the lease, the poor records have meant we cannot confirm if it appropriately inspected the cause of the issues or ruled out a potential latent defect.
22. Ultimately, the poor record keeping has meant we cannot find the landlord managed the resident’s concerns appropriately. While the contractor said the issues occurred after the defects period ended, records suggest the resident reported leaks in the bathroom during that period. The landlord and contractor also missed an opportunity to assess and consider whether the issues were connected. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord thoroughly investigated and satisfied itself of whether any latent defects were present in the bathroom. Therefore, we cannot find that its position and advice to the resident was reasonable. This was a failing.
23. Considering the above, we have found maladministration. We have made a relevant order to investigate whether a latent defect is present in the bathroom. The resident has also told us that staining has occurred on the WC ceiling, which is located below the bathroom. She feels this is related to the bathroom damp. We have therefore included this within the relevant order for the landlord to inspect this. It must also pay £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This award is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

24. The landlord’s complaints policy is broadly in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It responded appropriately within the timescales set by its policy and the Code.
25. Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns about poor workmanship of the build of the property. The landlord advised her to claim on the home insurance policy for an “escape of water” and gave details of its insurance broker. The advice was unclear about whether this related to a liability claim or something else. However, it was appropriate to outline her options for repairs.
26. The landlord could have also signposted the resident to other agencies for support. For example, the NHBC for possible warranty claims. Not doing so was a shortcoming in the circumstances. Despite this, its overall complaint handling was appropriate.

Learning

27. The landlord took positive action to investigate and resolve the extractor fan ducting. It appropriately set out how it would learn from its mistakes. This showed accountability and a commitment to put things right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not maintain clear, detailed records of inspections and outcomes. This meant it could not demonstrate that it acted appropriately to the repairs, specifically relating to possible latent defects.

Communication

29. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident following the inspections, which was a failing. This created uncertainty over its next steps.