Homes Plus Limited (202510424)

Decision
Case ID	202510424
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Homes Plus Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in April 2021. The landlord has mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident complained about outstanding repairs, damp and mould, and her garden.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. outstanding repairs.
2. damp and mould.
3. the resident’s concerns about her garden.
4. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her garden.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord has not completed all outstanding repairs. There were unreasonable delays and poor communication.
The landlord responded in line with its damp and mould policy. It acknowledged that it failed to initially find damp and mould. The repairs remain outstanding due to access issues. However, communication about appointments was poor.
The landlord’s response that it had addressed the issues with the garden in a previous complaint was in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord responded on time but failed to address all parts of the complaint.

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 11 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of outstanding repairs. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould. £75 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling. 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 11 February 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the outstanding internal and external repairs raised in March 2025, and repairs to the kitchen units are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 11 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord to review recommendations in our Repairing Trust spotlight report published May 2025 and consider how it intends to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
The landlord is to contact the resident about her complaint that her garden fence is not secure. It should consider if it needs to open a further complaint about this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 November 2024	The resident reported mould in the corner of the living room. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 7 January 2024 and raised repairs.
17 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs. Including after a previous complaint in 2022 and the condition of her garden.
16 April 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said: It completed repairs from the previous complaint. Plasterwork in the hallway was not part of this. It recently reraised this. It completed an inspection. There was an extensive list of repairs. It had asked the resident to confirm dates for the internal work. It addressed the complaint about the garden in a previous complaint. It had not completed repairs due to several no access visits. It had been unable to confirm a date with the resident for the works.
21 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The resident said the landlord had made repair appointments without proper confirmation. The resident said the landlord’s response about the garden work was incorrect.
29 May 2025	The landlord provided its final response. The landlord said: A further inspection on 20 March 2025 found mould. It completed plaster work to the ceiling on 27 February 2024. Its records showed several occasions when it could not gain access. It was sorry if communication about the appointments was not clear. In regard to its records, it had attended to clear the garden in 2022. It then attended again in 2023 following a report of further debris. It had now completed the external work. It was due to begin internal work on 19 May 2025. The resident was not available. It had emailed the resident to rearrange. It needed the resident to confirm availability for the remaining works. It acknowledged repeated issues with the ceiling. Also, that it failed to identify damp during the initial inspection. It offered £300 compensation. It broke this down as £75 for failing to identify damp and mould, £25 for the time and effort escalating the complaint, £50 for the ongoing issues with the ceiling, and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and compensation. She brought the complaint to us. The resident told us the repairs were still outstanding.
Events after the end of the complaints process	The resident raised a disrepair claim on 19 June 2025. This included some of the repairs in her complaint. The landlord confirmed legal proceedings had not been issued. It attempted to arrange access to inspect the property and complete repairs.

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 handling of outstanding repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident raised 2 previous complaints to the landlord. A complaint in May 2022 completed the complaints process in June 2022. This was about mould and plastering in bedrooms, the condition of the garden, and a letter box. A complaint from October 2023 completed the complaints process on 21 November 2023. This was about a bedroom ceiling and removing rubbish from the garden. The resident referred her complaint to us in June 2025 following a stage 2 response to her most recent complaint on 29 May 2025. Our scheme rules states we may not investigate complaints that are referred to us normally more than 12 months from the date of the final response. We have not investigated the complaints from 2022 and 2023. These responses addressed different repairs. Reference is made to earlier events to provide context.
The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Cracked plaster and ceiling

In her complaint, the resident said repairs from a previous complaint were incomplete. At stage 1, the landlord confirmed the works from the previous complaints had been completed. It said plasterwork in the hallway was not part of a previous stage 2 complaint in November 2023. It said it raised this to its repairs team at the time.
In its stage 2 response on 29 May 2025, the landlord admitted delaying a ceiling repair. The landlord said no access was provided on 20 December 2023. It said it completed this on 27 February 2024. Its records show a repair was raised to the hallway, stairs, and landing ceilings on 13 December 2023 and completed on 27 February 2024. However, the landlord confirmed to us the resident had told it on 23 April 2024 that the plastering was not finished. Also, the works raised following the inspection on 25 March 2025 included to reskim the hall, stairs and landing ceiling. This repair had remained outstanding for over 17 months by the end of the complaints process. The landlord kept inaccurate records, contributing to excessive delay. Its investigation failed to acknowledge the full extent of this delay.

Kitchen

The landlord raised repairs to kitchen units as part of a previous complaint in 2022. It completed this in May 2022. The resident reported further repairs to a kitchen cupboard door on 18 November 2024. The landlord’s published repairs policy at the time did not include the timescales for some repairs. Its website states its repair timescales for routine repairs is 17 calendar days. This algins with the target completion date on its repair records for the repair. The landlord arranged an appointment within this timescale on 3 December 2024. The landlord confirmed to us that no access was provided for this appointment. However, it was not clear how it arranged the repair with the resident.
A further appointment was booked for 14 February 2025. There was no evidence it agreed this with the resident. Its repairs policy says individually agreed suitable appointment timeslots will be made with residents. Its records about this appointment are unclear. Some evidence suggests no access was provided, yet the repair log marked the work as complete. Poor record keeping prevented accurate oversight. In December 2025, the resident told us repairs to the kitchen unit remains outstanding. This repair has remained outstanding for over a year.

Further repairs

Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed a property inspection on 25 March 2025. We have not seen a copy of the inspection report. In response, it raised a number of new additional external and internal repairs. This included repairs to repointing, work to the rear elevation, replacing concrete, resealing roof flashings, kitchen and bathroom repairs, loft insulation, re-bed slabs, cracks to ceiling in a bedroom, skirting in a bedroom and the waste pipe in the toilet. The landlord categorised the repairs as major works. This has a 60-day timescale for completion. On 28 March 2025, it appropriately contacted the resident to discuss the repairs. It confirmed they would be scheduled at her convenience, which was reasonable given the volume of work.
The landlord completed the external works on 7 May 2025. An overall timeframe of 51 days from the resident’s complaint. This was in line with its repair timescales.
A call note from 3 April 2025 states the resident requested internal repairs after the school holidays. These remain outstanding. The landlord’s records show no access for an appointment on 19 May 2025. The resident said she was unaware of an appointment for internal works that day. Records note the landlord confirmed the appointment on site on 7 May 2025. However, there is no evidence it confirmed this in writing or clarified it was for internal works. Since the resident had not needed to provide access for external works, the landlord should have confirmed access was required for this appointment.
On 28 May 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to rearrange the appointment. The resident asked for clarification on the repairs. The landlord provided this in its stage 2 response the next day. It asked the resident to confirm her availability so it could provide a timeline and book appointments, showing an effort to work with her. However, the evidence does not show when the landlord followed up. On 8 July 2025, the resident’s MP told the landlord she had not heard from it since the stage 2 complaint.
On 11 July 2025, the landlord’s internal emails show it contacted the resident about completing repairs the following week. It confirmed it had completed external work. The resident did not schedule the works, stating the external repairs were still incomplete. The ongoing issues have damaged trust between the landlord and the resident. We reference the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Repairing Trust in the learning section.
The resident raised a disrepair claim on 19 June 2025. The landlord’s records show it attempted to arrange an inspection. It could not gain access to inspect or complete repairs and has requested access through the resident’s solicitor. The landlord’s repairs policy states that if it cannot gain access to carry out repairs and this compromises the property’s integrity, fabric, or customer safety, it will take appropriate action. There is no evidence the landlord considered further action in line with this policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for unclear communication about appointments. Its communication was poor. While the resident rearranged some appointments, she disputed failing to provide access multiple times. She said she was not informed of all booked appointments and operatives arrived outside expected times. The landlord’s records note no-access visits and cards left. Its repairs policy requires individually agreed timeslots. The landlord failed to show it always agreed appointments with the resident or confirmed the purpose of each visit.
The landlord tried to put things right by raising repairs and offering compensation. It offered £50 for the ongoing ceiling issue, £150 for overall distress and inconvenience, and £25 for effort. This offer did not reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. She had to keep following up on some repairs from 2023 onwards.
Overall, the landlord failed to complete all repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Access issues caused further delays after the complaints process ended. However, the landlord missed opportunities to complete some repairs earlier. While the resident rearranged appointments, the landlord’s communication about repair appointments was unclear. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The landlord completed damp and mould repairs to the living room in 2022 following a complaint. On 25 November 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in the living room corner. In line with its policy, the landlord contacted her the next day and offered an inspection within the 7-day timeframe. At the resident’s request, it arranged an inspection for 5 December 2024, but no access was gained. It inspected on 7 January 2025.
The inspection found no damp or mould but noted water damage in the lounge corner, from a possible bathroom leak. On the same day, the landlord raised work to fix the leak, replaster, and upgrade the bathroom fan. In line with its damp and mould policy, it also sent the resident a letter confirming the inspection outcome.
The landlord raised repairs the same day and booked an appointment for 21 January 2025. The resident cancelled, and records show another appointment for 10 February 2025. A no-access card was left on this date. The resident said she was unaware of this appointment. There is no evidence of written confirmation. On 19 February 2025, the landlord contacted her to rebook. It scheduled 18 March 2025, which the resident could not attend. On 17 March 2025, it booked 12 May 2025. It is unclear why it did not book an earlier date.
On 14 March 2025, the resident reported damp and mould again. The landlord responded in line with its policy. It contacted her the same day. It arranged an inspection for 20 March 2025. The resident rescheduled. The inspection took place on 25 March 2025. It identified a mould wash was needed in the kitchen and bathroom. After discussing this and other repairs, the landlord booked the mould wash for 19 May 2025.
The landlord completed the bathroom fan work on 12 May 2025. Plastering could not proceed because the leak was unresolved. The landlord’s records show no access for the 19 May 2025 appointment. The resident said she was unaware of this appointment. Records note the landlord confirmed the appointment on site on 7 May 2025. There is no evidence it confirmed this in writing or clarified it was for internal works.
The damp and mould repairs remain incomplete. As explained above, the landlord has told us it has not been able to gain access following a disrepair claim. Overall, the landlord initially responded to the reports of damp and mould in line with its damp and mould policy. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its inspection in January 2025 did not identify the damp later found in March 2025. It offered £75 compensation for this. However, this did not go quite far enough to acknowledge the poor communication about repair appointments which caused delays.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her garden.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident raised previous stage 2 complaints about items in her garden and its condition in 2022 and again in 2023. In its stage 2 response on 29 May 2025, the landlord confirmed it had previously addressed the issues and provided final responses. We have seen no evidence of further reports or new concerns after the November 2023 complaint. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to investigate this again. This was in line with its complaints policy. This excludes previously investigated complaints unless there is new evidence.
In her complaint, the resident also raised concerns about an unsecured garden fence. There is no evidence this was addressed in previous complaints. The landlord did not respond to this issue. We have investigated this in the complaints handling section.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping regarding previous garden responses. She said one response stated the garden was cleaned, while another said it was not. It was unclear which responses the resident referred to in her concerns. In its final response, the landlord explained it arranged for the garden to be cleared in May 2022 and again on two occasions in 2023 after the resident reported finding new items. This explanation aligns with its records and previous responses.
The resident said the information in the stage 1 response on 16 April 2025 about the landlord and a charity clearing her garden was incorrect. The landlord had stated it, and a charity, cleared the garden when the resident first moved into the property. In its final response, the landlord said it had not intended to state it had arranged support from a charity. This miscommunication was likely frustrating for the resident who had arranged this support herself. The landlord appropriately apologised for this and recognised its wording was unclear.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code. This says it must acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. It must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident complained on 17 March 2025. The landlord logged the complaint and sent an acknowledgement on time. On 3 April 2025, it agreed to extend the response deadline to 17 April 2025, in line with policy and the Code. It responded on 16 April 2025, taking 22 working days overall.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation and responded at stage 2 on time.
On 3 April 2025, the landlord’s complaint records show it discussed the complaint with the resident. She said the fence at the bottom of the garden was open, unsecured, and unsafe for her children. On 24 April 2025, the resident emailed the landlord following up on her escalation request, stating fencing issues had remained unresolved since 2022. There is no evidence the landlord addressed the fence issue in a previous complaint. Therefore, it failed to address all parts of the resident’s complaint, which was not in line with the Code. The Code says landlords need to incorporate additional complaints raised during investigation into the stage 1 response, if they are related and the stage 1 has not yet been issued.

Learning

The landlord should investigate why its repair procedure has failed to provide the resident with the level of service she should expect and what steps it can take to ensure that other residents are not having the same experience.
The landlord should consider what steps it should take to rebuild the trust between it and the resident based on the recommendations in the spotlight report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records show conflicting information about the completion of repairs. It also did not provide full records of how it arranged all repair appointments with the resident. Landlords should maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident about appointments was poor. It did not record all of its attempts to arrange appointments with the resident.