Midland Heart Limited (202327137)

Decision
Case ID	202327137
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Midland Heart Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her 2 children. She reported a leak from the bathroom that caused her living room ceiling to collapse. She also reported that the landlord entered the property without her consent to collect a dehumidifier. She was unhappy with the landlord’s actions to resolve the leak and its response to her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s responses to the leak, follow on repairs, and staff conduct.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the leak, follow on repairs, and staff conduct.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Responses to the leak, follow on repairs, and staff conduct.

6. The landlord did not move the household to temporary accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. It did not keep the resident updated in line with its Repairs Policy and missed opportunities to put things right sooner. It failed to undertake a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns and offer reasonable compensation.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial escalation request. However, it accepted that its communication was poor, apologised, and reasonably compensated 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 person to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior member of staff 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 17 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £465 made up as follows: £120 it offered in its stage 2 response in relation to the leak complaint handling £345 for the distress and inconvenience it caused by its handling of the leak, follow on repairs, and staff conduct   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 17 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord could consider reviewing its key safe processes to ensure steps are taken to remove them in a timely manner.
The landlord could consider reviewing its Emergency Accommodation policy to ensure its processes are effective in managing emergencies. This could include how it identifies and risk assesses emergencies, and how and when it will communicate with residents if the situation arises.
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident within 4 weeks the £50 compensation it offered at stage 2 for its complaint handling if it has not done so already.
The resident has told us that she is concerned there is mould under the kitchen flooring. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to arrange an inspection of the kitchen flooring (and underneath the vinyl). The landlord should also consider what support it can provide to ensure large appliances and belongings can be moved safely so it can access and remove the flooring.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2023	The resident made a complaint. In summary, she said: on 8 October 2023 the bathroom flooded, and the living room ceiling had collapsed she and her children slept on a mattress at a family member’s home due to the property condition there were only 2 working lights in the whole property cracks had appeared in the walls she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication to resolve the damage
24 October 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: on 8 October 2023 it attended and repaired a burst waste pipe under the sink on 11 October 2023 the resident reported another leak and collapsed living room ceiling, which the landlord attended and found a burst pipe under the bath both leaks were unrelated and unforeseeable on 12 October 2023 it inspected the property, raised follow on repairs, and arranged temporary accommodation it would complete and inspect the repairs between 2 and 6 November 2023 before the resident return to the property the resident did not need to be present during the visits as it would access the property via a key safe it would give decoration vouchers when it completed the repairs it would compensate the resident for the dehumidifier electric costs
Between 22 December 2023 and 7 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and repair delays. In summary, she said: there was only 1 leak, which happened on 8 October 2023 and caused her ceiling to collapse the landlord took 4 days to temporarily move her after the flood the landlord entered the property to remove the dehumidifier without her consent once she had returned to the property she was not told how to claim the costs for the dehumidifier her belongings had been damaged by the leak damp and mould had formed under the flooring that had not been dried properly
8 February 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. In summary, it said: there were 2 leaks which were attended to as emergencies it completed temporary repairs and arranged temporary accommodation in line with its Repairs Policy repairs were completed 2 days later than planned it had told her the dehumidifier needed to be emptied regularly and that it did enter the property while she was away, which is its normal process the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and the floor were raised outside of the original complaint but its contractor would inspect it on 9 February 2024 it gave information on how the resident could make a personal injury claim it offered £170 compensation for its complaint handling and poor communication
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to her concerns about it entering the property, and the handling of the leak and follow on repairs. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: investigate her concerns that it entered the property when she had returned from temporary accommodation investigate why it had recorded there were 2 leaks instead of 1 compensate her for the distress and inconvenience

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 responses to the leak and follow on repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

8. On 8 October 2023 the resident reported a leak from the bathroom. She said her living room ceiling had collapsed. The landlord attended within 24 hours as set out in its Repairs Policy, which says it will attend emergency repairs such as a flood within this timeframe. However, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what repairs took place during this visit. This lack of detail later impacted its ability to demonstrate how it investigated at the time.
9. On 9 October 2023 the landlord raised follow on repairs for the ceiling, plaster, and electrics. While it raised these repairs promptly, it did not give the resident a timeframe for completion. This was a shortcoming in its communication.
10. Between 10 and 11 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and her local MP. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication in relation to the leak and said she and her children were sleeping on a mattress at a family member’s home. She also said the ceiling had collapsed and there were only 2 working lights in the property.
11. On 11 October 2023 the landlord responded to the MP. It told them that there had been 2 leaks, with the most recent leak on 11 October 2023. It said the second leak had damaged the ceiling. It confirmed the cooking, water and heating facilities were working. The resident disagrees with this and said she did not have access to functioning facilities. Considering there is no evidence to support the landlord’s comments, it is likely the resident felt that her concerns had been overlooked.
12. The landlord also told the MP that it had arranged an inspection for 12 October 2023 and planned to deliver a dehumidifier to help dry out the water damage. Although the landlord knew the ceiling had collapsed, it still waited a further 24 hours from receiving the MP’s email to inspect the property. This delay prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s oversight of the leak was poor and relied on the resident contacting it and her local MP. This was not reflective of its Repairs Policy to be proactive in identifying and processing repairs.
13. The landlord inspected the property on 12 October 2023, 4 days after the resident reported the leak that had collapsed the ceiling. It found unsafe lighting and noted that the household was staying with a family member. It arranged temporary accommodation for the resident the following day.
14. The landlord’s Temporary Accommodation Policy says that in emergencies, such as a flood, it may need to move residents into temporary accommodation. It also says the safety of its residents is of importance when responding to an emergency. Despite its inspection findings, the landlord did not show it considered temporary accommodation when she first reported the leak. Although the household included children, it did not show how it had considered the household’s safety.
15. On 24 October 2023 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It referred to 2 leaks, but its records show 1 leak, which was reported on 8 October 2023. This inconsistency caused the resident unnecessary frustration and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s repairs handling.
16. In its response, the landlord confirmed that it inspected the property on 12 October 2023 and moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 13 October 2023. This was consistent with our findings.
17. The landlord also gave a repairs timeframe and said it would post-inspect the works. It confirmed that it had installed a key safe, so the resident did not need to be present during the works. It also committed to giving decoration vouchers when the repairs were completed and would reimburse the resident for the dehumidifier running costs.
18. These steps helped set the resident’s expectations in relation to when she would likely be able to return to the property. Considering decorating is not the landlord’s responsibility, contributing towards the cost was fair and reasonable.
19. However, its response did not go far enough in putting things right. The landlord did not fully recognise the resident’s distress or inconvenience. It did not explain how or when it would reimburse her for the dehumidifier’s electric costs.
20. The landlord also failed to offer compensation in line with its policy, which recommends 20% of the weekly rent when residents are in temporary accommodation. It also says the landlord should cover heating and water costs during repair works. The landlord missed the opportunity to apply its policy.
21. Between 24 October and 10 November 2023 the landlord completed the repairs. During this time, the resident asked for access to collect her belongings and for an update on when she would return. The resident also told the landlord she was concerned that the hotel booking would end before she returned to the property. This caused her unnecessary distress. The landlord should have kept her informed as required under its Repairs Policy. However, it apologised for its poor communication and delays. The resident returned to the property on 10 November 2023.
22. Between 22 December 2023 and 7 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord twice to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord removed the dehumidifier in the property after her return without notifying her. She explained the significant distress this had caused.
23. She also told it that she had waited 4 days before the first inspection and that her belongings were damaged. She repeated that only 1 leak had occurred. She raised concerns about mould under the flooring, as she felt the area had not dried out properly before new flooring was fitted.
24. In its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024 the landlord said that it had told the resident that it would empty the dehumidifier every 2 days. It also said that residents usually cannot return to the property once the key safe is fitted.
25. The landlord misunderstood the resident’s concern about the entry after she had returned from temporary accommodation. This limited its ability to undertake a thorough investigation and meant it could not satisfy itself about what occurred. Its response did not reflect the seriousness of the concern and likely made the resident feel unheard.
26. When a landlord fits a key safe, it should remove it within a reasonable timeframe. Keeping it in place increases the risk of unauthorised entry. The landlord’s policy is silent on this. Removing it sooner may have reduced the resident’s concerns. This suggests the landlord’s processes may not be operating effectively.
27. In response to the resident’s concerns about the leak and delays, the landlord repeated that there were 2 leaks. This added to the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord to resolve her concerns. Because the landlord believed a second leak caused the ceiling to collapse, it failed to recognise that it delayed temporary accommodation for 4 days.
28. The landlord also gave the resident information on how she could make a personal injury claim. While the resident did express the impact on her health, she had asked for compensation for her damaged belongings.
29. The landlord should have explained its insurance process to the resident. We cannot assess or award compensation for personal injury or matters which are better handled by insurers. However, we can assess how the landlord communicated about these issues and the impact this reasonably had on the resident, including any time, trouble, distress or inconvenience. By overlooking the resident’s concerns about her damaged belongings, the landlord added to her frustration.
30. The landlord said that the mouldy flooring was a new concern raised outside of the complaints process, but it had arranged an inspection. This was reasonable given it was the first time the resident reported issues with the repairs’ quality.
31. The landlord accepted its poor communication in relation to both the repairs and the complaint. It offered the resident a total of £170 compensation, and we consider it reasonable to apportion £120 of this to the landlord’s leak handling. While this was a step towards putting things right, its offer did not go far enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
32. Evidence shows temporary accommodation was needed, but it did not arrange it for 4 days. The property had extensive water damage, and the resident could not stay there safely. It missed opportunities to reasonably compensate the resident in line with its policy. It misunderstood some of the resident’s concerns, which added to her distress and frustration.
33. In April 2025, 14 months after its stage 2 response and shortly after the complaint was brought to us, the landlord offered £2,139 compensation for the damaged belongings. While it is positive that the landlord did make an offer, it did not do so within a reasonable timeframe. There is also no evidence the landlord offered any further compensation for the failings we have identified.
34. When considering compensation, we referred to the landlord’s Compensation Matrix and our remedies guidance. The matrix recommends payments of 20% of the weekly rent when a resident cannot stay in the property, as well as a contribution towards the electricity and water costs while repairs are carried out. Taking this into account, we have made a total award of £465, inclusive of the landlord’s £120 offer.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
36. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
37. On 10 October 2023 the resident logged a complaint. The landlord acknowledged it the next day and gave its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023, 10 working days later. This was in line with its Complaints Policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint definition also complied with the Code.
38. On 22 December 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had recently spoken to the landlord to escalate her complaint and said she did not receive a response which prompted her email. It is unclear when this happened. However, the landlord later acknowledged its communication did not meet its service standard.
39. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 22 December 2023. This met its policy and the Code timeframes. On 7 January 2024 the resident told the landlord she was also unhappy with its complaint handling and communication. She explained that the information within its stage 1 response was incorrect and that its communication and investigation had been poor.
40. The landlord asked to extend the complaint target date on 29 January 2024 as it was still investigating. The Code allows landlords to extend a complaint timeframe by 20 working days. While it was on the date that the complaint response was due, it did explain its reasons. This was appropriate.
41. On 8 February 2023 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. This was within the extended timeframe. It offered her £170 compensation, and we consider it reasonable to apportion £50 of this to the landlord’s complaint handling. This was consistent with our remedies guidance, which suggests a payment of between £50 to £100 where there has been poor communication.

Learning

42. The landlord could take the opportunity to review this case and strengthen how it identifies and responds to risk, especially when a property is unsafe or a household includes children. Early recognition of hazards, such as a collapsed ceiling, helps ensure temporary accommodation is arranged without delay.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord’s records were unclear in relation to when the dehumidifier was collected. There was also limited information from the emergency call out. This likely hindered its ability to understand events and respond effectively.

Communication

44. The landlord did not fully understand the resident’s concerns during the complaint, which affected its ability to investigate the issues. The landlord should ensure it takes time to understand the resident’s complaint and the outcome they seek. This would help prevent further distress caused by incorrect or incomplete information.