Midland Heart Limited (202338232)

Decision
Case ID	202338232
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Midland Heart Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The resident lived in a 2 bedroom house with her 3 children. She complained about poor conditions, including recurring damp and mould affecting bedrooms and the bathroom, recurring mouse infestations, and a damaged light fitting. Unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaints, she asked this Service to investigate. The resident has told this Service that she has now left the property and is living elsewhere.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs, including recurring damp and mould, vermin infestation and a damaged light fitting.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs, including recurring damp and mould, vermin infestation and a damaged light fitting.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to follow its policies and obligations in managing damp and mould, repairs, and record keeping, resulting in prolonged delays, inadequate responses, and poor communication, which left the resident in poor conditions and caused inconvenience and significant distress.
The landlord’s complaints policy was Code-compliant, but its operation of the policy failed to meet its own timescales, did not ensure the resident received the stage 1 response, and did not fulfil commitments made at that stage. At stage 2, it requested an extension after the deadline, undermining confidence in the process. Compensation offered was inadequate and learning was not demonstrated until long after the complaint concluded. These failings caused unnecessary escalation and inconvenience.

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 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1000 made up as follows: £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of repairs associated with damp & mould. £100 for its delays in completing the repair to the light. £100 for its shortcomings in complaints management and poor record keeping. 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 January 2026
3	The landlord must undertake a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. This review must include: An exploration of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred. If it has not already done so, conduct a review of its approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould, including how it prioritises cases and acts on the findings within the expectations set out in the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. Consider what measures need to be put in place, in addition to any which it already has in place, to avoid a recurrence of the identified failings.	No later than 06 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 December 2023	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint online to the landlord. She complained about recurring damp and mould, vermin and an outstanding repair to a light. She said she was concerned for the health and safety of her family given the conditions at the property.
8 January 2024	The landlord responded to and upheld the stage 1 complaint. It said: It had provided the wrong date in its complaint acknowledgment and apologised. It acknowledged that previous repairs had not fully resolved the damp and mould. It had arranged a new damp and mould inspection for 10 January 2024. It had arranged for the Housing Officer to visit to discuss the mouse infestation. It apologised for the delay in repairing the light and had arranged an appointment for 12 January. It said it would ensure all repairs are completed and would provide compensation once all works were completed.
29 January 2024 and 22 April 2024	The resident contacted this Service and complained that she had not received the stage 1 response and that repairs had not been completed.
12 June 2024	This Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord sent a copy of its stage 1 response to this Service, which we forwarded to the resident.
19 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the damp & mould continued in the property, affecting the bathroom and 1 bedroom. She complained that there was an ongoing vermin problem. She confirmed the damaged light had been repaired. She expressed concern for the health & wellbeing of her family because of the poor conditions.
21 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said it would respond by 17 July 2024.
23 July 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to ask for an extension of time to respond to the stage 2 complaint. It said it would respond by 13 August 2024.
13 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would arrange remaining repairs to address the damp and mould for 21 and 22 August 2024. It would arrange new visits by the pest control team. It offered £400 compensation, broken down: £350 for delays resolving the damp and mould. £50 for complaints handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service and asked it to investigate. She sought assurances that the damp and mould would not reoccur and compensation.

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.

What we have not considered and why

The resident told the landlord that the living situation affected the household’s wellbeing. While we do not dispute this, we cannot determine any direct link between the complaint and health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of repairs, including damp and mould, vermin infestation and a light fitting.
Finding	Maladministration

Damp and mould

The landlord is legally required under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Homes Act 2018, and the Housing Act 2004 to ensure properties are safe, healthy, and free from hazards like damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s zero-tolerance stance on damp and mould is outlined in our report “Damp and Mould: It’s not a lifestyle.”
The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that emergency repairs are attended within 24 hours to prevent further risk or damage. Non-emergency repairs are scheduled within a 2-hour appointment window, with prior confirmation provided to ensure convenience for the resident. In addition, non-urgent repairs may be grouped by area under a batched programme, except where the repair presents health, safety, or structural concerns.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy details its processes for managing damp and mould reports. The landlord reviews damp and mould reports, including submitted evidence, and allocates cases to 1 of 2 stages based on severity. Stage 1 involves anti-fungicidal treatment within 28 days, a property condition report within 14 days, and repairs raised under the Repairs and Maintenance policy. Severe cases, repeat issues within 18 months, or health-related concerns escalate to Stage 2. Stage 2 includes a technical survey, completion of major works within 90 days, and tailored strategies where no property defects are found, with alternative accommodation arranged if works make the property unsafe. Post-inspections are carried out on 10% of Stage 1 cases and all Stage 2 cases.
The landlord had previously treated damp and mould on 3 occasions in 2017 and 2022. The resident reported a recurrence of damp and mould to the bathroom of her property on 23 February 2023. The landlord appropriately attended and completed repairs to the bathroom within 7 working days.
On 31 October 2023, the resident reported damp and mould throughout the property and principally in the bedrooms. The landlord acted appropriately by escalating the damp and mould report to Stage 2 in line with its policy and attended the property on 16 November 2023. It completed mould treatment and identified further investigations to the roof were required. However, there is no evidence that the landlord raised these identified survey works or any associated repairs on its repairs system. This omission is significant because failing to log repairs can lead to delays in addressing underlying causes of damp and mould, increasing the risk of recurrence and further inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord complied with its policy by escalating and attending promptly, its failure to record and progress the necessary repairs represents a shortcoming in its handling of the issue. This gap likely contributed to ongoing distress and inconvenience for the resident, as the root cause of the problem was not diagnosed or resolved.
On 4 December 2023, following another report of damp and mould, the landlord raised a new works order under stage 1 of its Damp and Mould process. Its records show that a mould wash was carried out on 12 December 2023. This response was inadequate given the repeated occurrence of damp and mould and the landlord’s failure to address the underlying causes. It also failed to recognise that it had recent reports of damp and mould and should have actioned this work at stage 2 of its Damp and Mould policy process.
Following the stage 1 complaint, internal emails showed the landlord lacked information about the 16 November inspection, evidencing poor communication and record keeping. It failed to arrange the roof inspection or address the root causes of damp and mould, missing opportunities to reassure the resident of its commitment to effect the repairs. It did not provide any mitigation measures, such as dehumidifiers or filtration systems. As a result, the resident and her 3 children remained in poor conditions over winter, causing distress and frustration.
The landlord produced a Housing Conditions Inspection report on 10 January 2024. Its survey identified extensive disrepair which was causing the damp and mould. This included defects in the external wall and roof areas permitting rainwater ingress, defects with the guttering and rainwater plumbing contributing to the damp, missing and ineffective extractor fans, and a leak from the boiler.
The landlord’s repairs logs indicate works orders were raised on 26 January 2024 with a target date of completion by 27 April 2024. The target date was 93 days after the job was raised, which was not in compliance with the landlord’s policy commitment to complete major works within 90 days.
The evidence indicates that no repairs were completed, and the works order was closed in error in April 2024. Internal communications suggest weaknesses in oversight and record keeping, as shown by an email dated 11 June 2024 asking, “Is this job still with us? It’s not on the WIP.” No action was taken at that point to progress the repairs, and there is no evidence of urgency in the landlord’s response to the resident’s continued reports of damp and mould. Repairs were not scheduled until 21 and 22 August 2024, following the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 19 June 2024. This was 297 days after the first report of recurrence. The landlord missed opportunities to show it was addressing the resident’s concerns promptly, which likely affected the landlord and tenant relationship.
This delay represents significant shortcomings in repairs management, record keeping and communication. The failure to monitor and progress planned works allowed the damp and mould to persist for an extended period, exposing the resident to prolonged inconvenience and distress. The lack of timely action undermined the landlord’s own Damp and Mould Policy and its obligations to address hazards promptly. The extended timescale also suggests potential systemic weaknesses in oversight and record keeping, which in this case contributed directly to the delay in resolving the problem and ending the adverse impacts.

Vermin infestation

The landlord’s policy states it will intervene in cases of rats, mice, or cockroaches and where disrepair contributes to infestation. When a case is raised, it books an appointment, inspects, completes necessary actions, and records documentation before closing.
The resident reported mice in December 2023; a follow-up visit in February 2024 found no infestation, but this Service has not seen the initial visit record, evidencing poor record keeping. In June 2024, the resident reported ongoing vermin issues, and the landlord appropriately arranged a new pest control visit. Between August and September 2024, the landlord contacted the resident 12 times and received 6 responses, showing proactive follow-up.

Damaged light fitting

On 14 September 2023, the resident reported an emergency repair due to an uncontainable leak causing significant water penetration through the kitchen light fitting. The landlord attended the same day, made the area safe, and installed a temporary light, which was appropriate under its Repairs Policy requiring emergency repairs to be attended within 24 hours. However, there is no evidence seen that a permanent repair was arranged following this visit, indicating poor oversight and inadequate follow-up within its repairs process.
The permanent repair was not completed until 12 January 2024,121 days after the emergency report. This delay significantly exceeded reasonable timescales and was inconsistent with the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Homes Act 2018 to maintain a safe living environment. Leaving the resident without a permanent light fitting for over 4 months caused avoidable inconvenience and required repeated effort to pursue the repair. The prolonged delay also undermined the landlord’s Repairs Policy commitment to timely completion of works and demonstrated weaknesses in its case management and communication.
The landlord’s records show that during its attendance on 22 August 2024 to effect the repairs, it identified that the damp and mould was worse and needed further investigation. It carried out a post inspection survey on 30 August which also identified additional works were necessary. In November 2024, the resident reported the damp and mould had returned, suggesting that the landlord had not fully resolved the underlying causes. These events are noted for reference as they occurred after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
In summary, the landlord repeatedly failed to follow its own policies and obligations in managing damp and mould, repairs, and record keeping. While it initially acted appropriately, it did not raise identified repairs, responded inadequately to repeat reports, failed to put in place mitigation measures, and allowed extensive delays, including 297 days for major works and 121 days for an electrical light repair. These failures left the resident and her children in poor conditions for prolonged periods, causing significant distress and inconvenience. Poor communication, lack of oversight, and weaknesses in repairs management contributed directly to these delays. The landlord’s actions fell below the standards set out in its Repairs Handbook, Damp and Mould Policy, and requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Homes Act 2018. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s Complaints, Comments, Compliments and Reasonable Adjustments Policy was compliant with the Code. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days for investigations or 20 working days for reviews, with extensions of up to 10 working days agreed in advance for complex cases.
The policy states financial compensation is a final option and will only be paid in cases where the loss or suffering is considered to warrant such a payment or where the resident has suffered significant inconvenience because of the landlord’s actions.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 15 December 2023, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The landlord issued its response by email on 8 January 2024, 14 working days later, slightly outside its policy timescales. The resident subsequently contacted this Service in January 2024, stating she had not received the response. It is not possible for this Service to establish why the resident did not receive the landlord’s email.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated it would follow up on the repairs to ensure completion and offer redress to the resident. There is no evidence seen that these commitments were fulfilled, indicating weaknesses in complaints handling and record keeping.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 June and advised the resident it would investigate and respond by 17 July 2024. This was compliant with its policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2024, 5 working days after it should have issued its stage 2 response, requesting a further extension to 13 August 2024. This could not but have caused frustration to the resident and damaged her confidence in the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 13 August 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its delays in completing repairs and arranged dates for the works to be completed. It offered the resident compensation of £350 for the delays in treating the damp and mould and £50 compensation for complaints handling. However, the landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to learning from its errors in this case and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the extent of its failings.
After the end of its ICP the landlord’s offer of £850 compensation in October 2025, after learning from recent determinations, was positive but came too late and after the complaint was made to this Service. This should have been provided during the complaints process. Failure to do so contributed to unnecessary escalation to this Service, causing the resident additional time, trouble, and inconvenience.
In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its own complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. It failed to meet response timescales, did not ensure the resident received its stage 1 response, and did not fulfil commitments made in that response. At stage 2, it requested an extension after the deadline had passed, which undermined confidence in the process. The compensation offered during the complaints procedure was not proportionate to the extent of failings, and learning was not demonstrated until long after the complaint concluded. These shortcomings caused unnecessary escalation and additional inconvenience to the resident. Consequently, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

Learning

The landlord should strengthen its complaints handling by ensuring policy timescales are met, commitments made in responses are fulfilled, and proportionate redress is offered during the process, not after escalation. It should embed learning promptly and demonstrate accountability through improved oversight and communication.

Knowledge and Information Management (Record Keeping)

The case revealed significant gaps in record keeping, including failure to log identified repairs, unclear documentation of pest control visits, and no evidence of follow-up on commitments made in complaint responses. The landlord should implement robust systems for tracking repairs and complaint actions to prevent delays and loss of information.

Communication

Communication was inconsistent. While initial acknowledgements were timely, the landlord failed to ensure the resident received the stage 1 response and requested extensions after deadlines had passed. Internal emails showed confusion about outstanding works, indicating poor internal communication. These shortcomings undermined confidence in the process and contributed to escalation.