Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202413576)

Background

1. The resident complained about repair work following the collapse of her living room floor due to damp.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repair work.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repair work.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould and associated repair work

4. The landlord’s apology and compensation offer was proportionate redress for the failings we found in our investigation.

Complaint handling

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which it did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a collapsed living room floor was timely and it attended the same day. It took proportionate action including arranging an inspection of the flooring and repair work to renew it. It conducted a CCTV drainage survey which found that damp following a leak from a displaced drainage pipe had caused the floor joists to rot and subsequently collapse. Its records indicate it completed all remedial works on 21 August 2024, within 40 working days. This was in line with its policy timescale for major repair work which it classed these works as.
7. The resident told the landlord she lived with young children with disabilities. It is unclear whether it considered whether alternative temporary accommodation was required due to the extent of the repairs. We have seen no evidence that it completed a risk assessment for any hazards.
8. Upon reporting the initial repair to the floor, the resident told the landlord that her laminate flooring and the wall had been damaged. She said she was unable to afford to redecorate or replace the flooring and raised concerns about how expensive the property was to heat. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these concerns until its stage 1 complaint response, 5 months later. This likely left the resident feeling ignored and frustrated.
9. On 19 November 2024, the landlord visited the resident to investigate her complaint. It subsequently raised repairs, including a mould wash in the living room and an inspection of the gable wall brickwork. This indicated that earlier works had not resolved the damp issue. We saw no evidence that the resident informed the landlord of this after its completion of repairs in August 2024. Although the landlord did not complete a post-works survey, in the absence of any further reports it was reasonable for it to assume its initial repairs had resolved the matter.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response summarised the repair work it was undertaking along with appointment dates. It said it had arranged for its contractor to conduct a survey of the heating system. This demonstrated it had taken on board the resident’s concerns about the cost to heat the property. It recognised the resident’s flooring and wall decoration had been damaged due to the floor collapse and offered £700 compensation. It said this was to reimburse her for the flooring and paint needed to redecorate and it would credit this to her account by 25 November 2024.
11. The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing with adversely affected a resident. Alternatively it could have provided the resident with its liability insurers details or directed her to her own contents insurer. That said, it acted in line with its discretionary compensation policy to address her concerns.
12. On 25 November 2024 the resident told the landlord she had not received the compensation payment. It subsequently reviewed its finance records, contacted its bank, and requested the resident’s bank statements to investigate. Its records confirmed the payment had been made to her account. The statements provided by the resident were incomplete so it offered a home or office visit to review them with her. It repeated this offer in its final complaint response. Its actions were reasonable and showed its commitment to resolve the matter.
13. The landlord attended on 26 November 2024, as set out in its stage 1 response, to complete the mould wash in the living room. It found damaged brickwork, skirting boards and damp which required further inspection. Its surveyor inspected the issue the following day and raised remedial work to inject a damp proof course in the front wall. Its records show it completed the work within its repair timescales on 13 January 2025.
14. The landlord’s contractor conducted a survey of the heating system on 26 November 2024. It recommended that it upgrade the living room radiator to a double panel type. Its repair records confirm it attended to complete the work on 28 January 2025 but did not gain access to the property. The resident subsequently chased it 4 times between February and April 2025. There is no evidence that it responded and she has told us that the repair remains outstanding. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
15. In response to the resident’s correspondence on 7 January 2025 indicating the issue was outstanding, the landlord took proportionate action including inspecting the external brickwork and raising repair work to this and the external door frame. On 5 March 2025, she reported damp had reappeared on her newly decorated living room wall. While we acknowledge the recurrence of damp was likely frustrating for the resident, issues with damp and mould are often complex and can take time to investigate and resolve. The landlord subsequently completed the brickwork repairs within its repair policy timescales.
16. Following the resident’s escalation request she told the landlord in correspondence on 9 April 2025 that the fireplace in the living room had collapsed. We have not seen a repair record relating to this. Despite not forming part of the original complaint, the landlord said in its final response that it needed to inspect the issue which was reasonable.
17. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for the inconvenience caused. It summarised the repair work it had undertaken and said it wanted to inspect the property to ensure it had completed repair work satisfactorily. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange this. Given her frustration in getting the matter resolved, it would have been more appropriate for it to contact her to make this arrangement.
18. In summary while there were some failings, the landlord’s overall approach to the matter was proportionate and within its repair policy timescales. Its apology and offer of compensation were proportionate and in line with the awards set out in our remedies guidance.
19. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident has told us that she commenced disrepair proceedings that included the damp issue in the living room. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.

20. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. It failed to log the resident’s communication of 27 June 2024 as a complaint. It subsequently did so following our intervention on 1 November 2024, over 4 months after she asked to make a complaint.
22. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 7 January 2025. It only did so following further contact from her in March 2025. This led to avoidable time and trouble for her chasing the progress of her complaint.
23. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise, or offer redress for its complaint handling delays in its responses. We have made an order for it to apologise and pay compensation.

Learning

General learning

24. The landlord should review its process concerning repairs where it has not gained access. It may wish to refer to our May 2025 spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Record keeping

25. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements for complaints to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

26. The landlord should consider contacting residents following completion of major works, particularly if the works form part of a complaint resolution. This would enable it to ensure that its actions have led to a satisfactory resolution of matters raised.