Midland Heart Limited (202438645)

Background

1. The resident first raised his complaint while reporting repairs to the landlord. He advised he had a number of issues that the landlord had not resolved. These included repairs in both his flat and the communal area. He also raised concerns regarding the address on his original tenancy agreement being incorrect.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of the incorrect address on his tenancy agreement.
   2. Outstanding repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of the incorrect address on his tenancy agreement.
   2. The handling of outstanding repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord appropriately explained what had caused the issue regarding the incorrect address on the original tenancy.
   2. It provided the correct address details and offered to replace the resident’s original tenancy agreement.
   3. It undertook a review of the signage on the scheme to ensure buildings were showing the correct number and postcode.
   4. It identified failings in its repairs process and offered an appropriate response and level of redress.
   5. It used the complaints process to investigate outstanding repairs and provide an appropriate response regarding its position on these.

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.

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.

7. A tenancy agreement is a legal document and therefore needs to be accurate. The landlord has acknowledged the address on the resident’s original tenancy was incorrect. In his complaint the resident says the address error made it difficult for other services to locate his home. He says the landlord’s delay in resolving the matter caused him time and trouble making a complaint.
8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged the resident’s concerns relating to the additional wording of ‘annex’ listed on the tenancy agreement. It apologised for any confusion this may have caused and offered assurance it had the correct address recorded on its systems. However, it failed to confirm with the resident the full extent of the error. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to correct the address details at this stage. By not doing so, caused the resident time and trouble having to escalate his complaint.
9. In his escalation the resident has explained that the issue was not only the additional wording, but also the postcode. He explained it was this error that had led to services attending a property in the main building as opposed to his flat in the annex. Had the landlord investigated matters thoroughly at stage 1, it may have resolved this matter sooner.
10. In its stage 2 response the landlord has appropriately apologised for any confusion. It confirmed the correct address details with the resident and offered to replace his tenancy agreement. The landlord also produced evidence to show that it reviewed the site signage and ensured both buildings were clearly and correctly sign-posted. This response shows the landlord learned from its stage 1 failings and took steps to put things right.
11. We find the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve these matters. While the landlord failed to fully address the issue at stage 1, it appropriately acknowledged this at stage 2. It then undertook a thorough review of the site and the information it held to provide a resolution.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs with 24 hours. It classifies an emergency as a repair necessary to prevent danger to life or property. It will attend to routine repairs that fall outside of an emergency within 28 days.
13. In his initial complaint call the resident has raised concerns regarding several outstanding repairs. Evidence shows the landlord arranged appointments for 3 of the repairs during the call. It also sought updates on the remaining outstanding issues from the relevant departments. This was an appropriate response and in line with its policy.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord provided further clarity on the outstanding repairs and has acknowledged some failings. It confirmed:
    1. That the resident would hear from its aids and adaptations team within 30 working days.
    2. It had inspected the radiators in the communal area for the block and it confirmed they were working appropriately. It advised a gas surveyor would contact him within 5 working days to investigate the heat from the boiler in his flat.
    3. It had responded to his report of uneven floorboards as an emergency to complete a make safe repair. It also arranged a follow up visit to complete a permanent fix.

This is an appropriate response and the timescales stated are in line with its policy.

15. The landlord identified 2 service failures during its stage 1 investigation. It identified that a repair to his ceiling rose in September 2024 had not lasted and subsequently reoccurred in October 2024. It also accepted it had not followed up on the broken glass in the bedroom window. It acknowledged it had taken measurements for a replacement but it had not ordered this due to an internal error. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge the failings and provide a resolution to these.
16. The resident expressed his concerns regarding the heat in his flat and the communal area. He alleged the excess heat was the cause of the ceiling rose drying out and the glass in the bedroom window cracking. He also said he had not received a response to his OH report regarding his wet room. The resident has told us a new heating system resolved the issue inside the flat. However, the issue within the communal area remained.
17. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately responded to each of the resident’s points. It explained that:
    1. Residents had been adjusting the temperature in the communal area to suit their needs. It said due to the complaint it had referred the issue internally to explore a possible solution. However, as different people prefer different temperatures this may not be possible.
    2. The OH report found he did not require a wet room to be installed as he could use the current bathroom without issue. It had however highlighted a longer term need for a single level access property. The landlord had confirmed he had declined their assistance in this matter and reiterated he could contact them again for assistance if required.
    3. It also provided updates on repairs raised during the original complaint, which had now been resolved. We have seen evidence to confirm this.

Having completed its review, it upheld its stage 1 finding and offered £170 compensation. This is a proportionate amount and in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.

18. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint about its handling of outstanding repairs in his flat and communal area. The landlord appropriately used the complaints process to investigate the resident’s concerns and provided a resolution. The evidence provided demonstrates that where it identified service failures, it appropriately learnt from these and offered a resolution. It also offered appropriate redress and apologised for these.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The resident raised a complaint on 17 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 31 October 2024. This is in line with the timescale in its policy.
21. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 3 working days. Its stage 2 response followed 20 working days later on 16 December 2024. Both of these are in line with the timescale advised in its policy.
22. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. All of its responses were issued within the appropriate timescales and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to providing a permanent solution.

Learning

General Learning

23. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Code is essential for a fair and transparent service. It is essential for a landlord to fully understand the scope of the resident’s concerns during the stage 1. This may support reduction of escalations to stage 2.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord provided us all information within the required timescales.

Communication

25. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing repairs. The landlord must provide regular updates so the resident does not need to chase for information. When booking work, the landlord should confirm the scope of repairs with contractors before scheduling appointments. Failure to share accurate details creates confusion, delays, and frustration for residents. Good practice involves explaining what work will take place, confirm dates, and ensure all parties understand the requirements. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.