Willow Tree Housing Partnership Limited (202316394)

Decision
Case ID	202316394
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Willow Tree Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a semi-detached house. She has a number of vulnerabilities. These include fibromyalgia and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).A previous tenant made unauthorised alterations to the property, which has some related repair issues. The modifications include an extension to the rear.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of various repair issues.
2. Concerns about historical repair issues.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of various repair issues.
2. Complaint handling.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about historical repair issues.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that:
1. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or do enough to put things right for her.
2. The landlord changed its approach to the historical repair issues but did not acknowledge that this could be confusing for the resident.
3. The landlord overlooked complaint handling issues that adversely impacted the resident.

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 provided by a relevant senior manager. 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 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its response to her reports of various repair issues. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. £350 that it awarded the resident during its internal complaints process. 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 06 January 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about its position on the outstanding repairs/works. It must also signpost her to its damage claims process and financial support team. It must share a copy of its update with the Ombudsman.	No later than 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 August 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repair issues. She referenced a leak, cold, and mould at the property. She said she had reported these problems to the landlord in March 2023. She highlighted her vulnerabilities. The resident’s other key points were: The leak had damaged her family’s belongings. It was expensive to heat the property during winter. She had chased the landlord several times about the repairs. The landlord had completed a number of inspections. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord afterwards.
29 and 31 August 2023	The resident added to her complaint. She referenced the landlord’s handling of historical repair issues. She said she had previously arranged and funded repairs that the landlord should have completed. The resident also said that some of the property’s windows needed to be replaced.
19 September 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for some delays and communication issues. It said it would complete a full inspection of the property and supply an action plan to the resident. It also said it would keep her updated about the repairs subsequently.
23 September and 2 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She disputed aspects of the landlord’s repair timeline and said its response contained errors. She subsequently referenced a lack of empathy, urgency, and competence on the landlord’s part. She said it should complete the repairs promptly.
26 October 2023	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said some of the property’s repair issues would take time to resolve. It confirmed it would create a repair specification and work with the resident to implement this. In relation to the historical repair issues, it offered to pay the resident £350.
20 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again. She said the initial repair issues were outstanding, and further problems had arisen. At this time, the landlord had 3 stages in its internal complaints process.
29 July 2024	The landlord issued a final response to the resident. It identified failures relating to its communication, record keeping, and lack of repairs. It upheld the complaint and apologised to the resident. It confirmed that its Chief Executive would supervise the outstanding repair works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In 2025, the resident told us the landlord had made limited progress with the repairs. In summary, she wanted the landlord to obtain and independent survey and complete any recommended works. She said it should also pay her some additional compensation for distress.

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	Response to the resident’s reports of various repair issues
Finding	Maladministration

The key repair timeline can be divided into phases. Broadly, the initial phase ran from March 2023 until late August 2023. This was a period of about 6 months. The parties agree that the landlord was responsible for delays and communication failures at this stage. The landlord rightly apologised for these during its internal complaints process.
However, we find an apology was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. This is because she facilitated 2 inspections in this period. She also chased the landlord at least 3 times. It is likely this was inconvenient for her. The resident had reported mould and other issues. The landlord did not carry out any repairs. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the resident found the landlord’s lack of urgency distressing.
The second phase of the repair timeline runs from about September 2023 onwards. The landlord began to raise related repair orders at that time. It subsequently decided to demolish the unauthorised extension. It said this did not meet required building standards and remedial works would be too costly. The landlord was entitled to make this decision.
In its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident that it should complete standard repairs within 28 days. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary. It also said the demolition works would take longer as these required additional planning. In contrast, the demolition works and other repairs are still outstanding to date (around 27 months later).
In mitigation, the landlord was unable to progress some of the works. For example, records show it was unable to access the property in November 2023. In June 2024, the resident declined mould treatment works because she felt these were only a temporary solution. It is reasonable to conclude that these works would have alleviated any mould.
The resident experienced some difficult personal circumstances in this phase of the repair timeline. The parties’ correspondence shows these delayed matters at times. The landlord adopted a sensitive approach. For example, in August 2024 its Chief Executive gave the resident their contact details. They said she could contact them directly when she was ready to progress matters. This was a positive and supportive measure.
Despite the mitigating circumstances, the landlord identified additional failures in its final response to the resident. It said miscommunication, inadequate records, and a lack of follow up had contributed to delays. It also said it was “unacceptable” that it had not addressed the repairs. Since it had identified a number of significant failures, the landlord could have reasonably awarded the resident some compensation. It did not do this.
The landlord overlooked other issues during its complaints process. For example, the resident mentioned damaged personal items in her initial complaint. The landlord referenced this in some of its responses. However, there is no indication it attempted to address the reported damage in line with any relevant policies. This was unreasonable.
Similarly, the resident repeatedly referenced the cost of living during her complaint to the landlord. For example, in her second escalation request, she said that she was being “impoverished” by the property’s repair issues. Her comments indicate that she may have been experiencing financial difficulties. However, there is no indication that the landlord considered whether it could offer her any additional support. This was unreasonable.
The resident’s comments highlighted a potential welfare issue. The landlord should have engaged with these. Its website says it can help residents who are experiencing financial issues. It mentions options such as payment plans and support from third-party agencies. Ultimately, the landlord may have missed related opportunities to help the resident.
In summary, during its internal complaints process, the landlord apologised for various failures across the repair timeline. However, it has not recognised the full extent of these or the related adverse impact to the resident. Its apology was disproportionate given what went wrong. Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s concerns about historical repair issues
Finding	Service failure

The resident’s complaint included concerns about the landlord’s handling of historical repair issues. The evidence suggests these occurred between April 2016 and February 2022.This was at least 17 months before the resident complained to the landlord. Ultimately, a significant amount of time had passed since the events in question.
The landlord attempted to investigate the resident’s concerns at stage 1. Subsequently, the resident disputed its timeline of events. This shows the difficulty of investigating historical matters. At stage 2, the landlord said the resident could not complain about issues that happened more than 6 months ago. This was a change of approach.
At this point, the landlord cited an exclusion in its complaints procedure. We have not seen a copy of its relevant document. However, it referenced a timescale that was consistent with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to apply a time restriction. Time restrictions can also apply to our investigations.
Though it declined to investigate the resident’s concerns at stage 2, the landlord used its discretion to offer her £350. While this was a positive approach, it described the offer as a compensation payment. Since it had not identified any related failures, this may have been confusing for the resident. It could have referred to its offer as a goodwill gesture.
Overall, the landlord changed its approach to the resident’s concerns about historical repair issues. It could have reasonably acknowledged that the change may have been confusing for the resident. Similarly, the description in its stage 2 response was potentially confusing. As a result, we find there was service failure by the landlord.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident. In the circumstances, we find an apology is sufficient to address the adverse impact of the above identified issues.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Code sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective May 2023) says it reflects the Code’s provisions.
There were issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, its stage 1 and 2 responses did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld, not upheld). The Code says a compliant response must include a decision in “plain language”. The landlord’s policy has a matching provision. It did not adhere to this aspect of its policy or the Code.
Ultimately, the landlord’s decisions at stage 1 and 2 were not sufficiently clear. Its lack of clarity may have caused some confusion for the resident. The below information shows there was a further issue with the landlord’s handling during the relevant complaint journey. It also shows the resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s approach.
In September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said her request was necessary because there were multiple errors in its stage 1 response. For example, she said the landlord had incorrectly stated that she moved to the property via a mutual exchange. The resident’s comments show accuracy was important to her.
The landlord did not acknowledge any errors in its subsequent responses. As a result, it did not attempt to clarify matters or put things right for the resident. This was inadequate. The landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every complaint investigation. This will allow it to address any procedural delays or failures accordingly.
Overall, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code at times. Significantly, it overlooked the resident’s concerns about the quality of its stage 1 response. This was a procedural failure. The resident was adversely impacted and the landlord did not attempt to put things right. As a result, we find there was maladministration on its part.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

The landlord did not provide adequate redress in relation to the resident’s core complaint. It could measure any delays in its responses and/or reference any adverse impacts it has identified. This may help the landlord to establish a proportionate level of redress.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord was unable to supply an inspection record. Other aspects of its repair records were unclear at times. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies. The landlord could remind its staff about this.

Communication

Some of the landlord’s communications lacked clarity. The Code will help it to improve the quality of its complaint communications.