Plus Dane Housing Limited (202500289)
|
Case ID |
202500289 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Plus Dane Housing Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
13 February 2026 |
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom mid-terrace house with her husband who is a joint tenant and their son. The landlord was aware at the time of the complaint that the resident has arthritis and anxiety and her son has asthma. The resident reported issues of damp coming through into the property from 6 March 2023. She also reported issues with the fence panels on 24 February 2024. The resident’s husband was a point of contact with the landlord from 17 April 2023 who raised the complaints on their behalf. We have referred to ‘the resident’ throughout this report for clarity.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property.
- The resident’s reports of repairs required to the fence panels in the garden.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property.
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the fence panels in the garden.
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord unreasonably delayed repairs required to the roof and guttering and the associated damp and mould issues in the property. It failed to act in line with its repairs policy obligations. It took the landlord 14 months to complete effective roofing and guttering repairs and a further 6 months before it replaced the roof and guttering. It only acted on its surveyor’s recommendations by upgrading the extractor fans in December 2025. It was aware from 2023 that a lack of ventilation was an issue in the property.
- The landlord reasonably paid for the resident’s damaged furniture and furnishings during its internal complaints process rather than directing the resident to their own contents insurance. The landlord’s long delay in fully resolving the leaks had a significant impact on the resident whose circumstances were known to the landlord. The resident described how the delays and poor management of the repairs caused her disruption, worry and distress that impacted on her anxiety. The landlord offered £800 during its internal complaints process, along with a £100 decorating voucher, which the Ombudsman considers does not fully compensate the resident as a result. This has led to our finding of maladministration.
- The landlord unreasonably delayed the repairs and the replacement of the fence panels in the garden. The landlord’s poor communication and record keeping led to poor follow up, delays and failed appointments causing the resident distress and inconvenience. It took the landlord 15 months to complete the work, which was outside of its repairs policy timescale. The landlord offered £100 during its internal complaints process. However, the Ombudsman has found maladministration as this does not adequately reflect the landlord’s long delay in resolving this issue, considering the impact on the resident.
- The landlord delayed its complaints handling extended the internal complaints process. Poor record keeping meant it gave incorrect information in its final complaint response for the resident’s initial complaint. It delayed the final complaint response for the resident’s subsequent complaint which was not in line with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord identified some learning from the resident’s complaint, and it is introducing a new repairs management system to help it to improve its communication and response to repair issues. It has also created a new team to tackle damp and mould issues appropriately.
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:
|
No later than 13 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,500 made up of as follows:
|
No later than 13 March 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 March 2023 – 13 February 2024 |
The resident reported issues of leaks from the roof and associated damp and mould upstairs of the property on 4 occasions. The landlord treated mould in both bedrooms between May to June 2023, and it also inspected the property on 6 December 2023 where it found no visible mould but requested a roof inspection. The resident informed the landlord of a leak from the chimney breast on 13 February 2024. |
|
20 March 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord about the state of the property. They chased a damp inspection and reported a problem with the guttering. They also reported that fence panels were falling off in the garden that required replacement. |
|
26 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that its roofing contractor had completed repairs on 16 January and 13 February 2023. After a further inspection of 6 December 2023, it found damp stains on the bedroom ceiling near the chimney stack requiring further repairs. It had asked its contractor to prioritise the work. It found no mould during its inspection in December 2023 but had completed a mould treatment and painting previously in 2023. It had raised a works order on 26 February 2024 to renew 12 fence panels. It upheld the complaint and offered £50 in compensation. |
|
11 May 2024 |
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint. They said they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer and that they had spent money for blinds, paint and days missed at work. They also described the distress that the issues were causing them. As a remedy they wanted the landlord to resolve the leaks, damp, and mould issues. |
|
20 May 2024 – 28 May 2024 |
The resident complained that the landlord had organised the fencing work on the same day that its roofing contractor had erected scaffolding. This meant that the fencing was not replaced. They said that after reporting loose scaffold that the landlord had made an unannounced visit at 8.10 pm. They said they were putting their autistic son into bed, and it caused additional distress. They reported a failed appointment as the roof contractor was due to attend but phoned at 4.30 pm to say they would not be able to. They said this caused inconvenience in having to take time off work. |
|
25 June 2024 |
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It referred to a conversation it said it had with the resident on 17 June 2024 which focussed on the remedy as the resident was dissatisfied with this at stage 1. It increased its offer to £200 compensation for the resident’s stress and inconvenience, and it offered £100 as a decorating voucher. |
|
15 August 2024 |
The landlord issued a further amended stage 2 complaint response in response to the resident’s report of an inaccuracy in its earlier stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated its earlier response and its compensation offer. |
|
12 September 2024 |
The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord about the repairs and the damp that was unresolved. They said that they were expecting the landlord’s maintenance team leader to visit and no one had showed up. As a remedy they requested the landlord to resolve the damp and repair issues. |
|
18 October 2024 |
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that this was late. It upheld the complaint as it recognised that it had failed to attend the appointment to inspect the property, and no one had informed the resident that it was not going ahead. It said it would monitor completion of the work. |
|
3 December 2024 |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response requesting an escalation of the complaint. They said that the damp had been treated but only that Monday and it had been reported over a year ago. They said that the damp and had damaged their furniture, wallpaper and blind and that the property smelt of mould. They said that their son had asthma and it should not have taken so long to be dealt with. |
|
17 February 2025 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed that there were service failings including delays in repairing the roof and guttering. It awarded £2,771.71 in compensation comprising £746.86 for items that the resident reported were damaged and replaced, £1,324.91 for items that the resident had not yet disposed of but were damaged. It awarded £700 for distress due to its failure to resolve a repeat issue. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. She referred her case through to us on 7 April 2025. As a remedy the resident told us that she wished to move and for compensation to help facilitate this. |
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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property
|
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The landlord’s records evidenced that the resident had reported earlier issues of leaks, damp and mould from 2018. However, we have not seen a further report until January 2023. The resident raised a complaint on 20 March 2024 which was over a year after the previous report. We have therefore not investigated the earlier reports of leaks from 2018. The resident made 3 further complaints following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process that did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. We have therefore not investigated these later complaints. The resident may wish to refer these later complaints to us if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response.
- The resident told us that she wished to move but that the landlord had not agreed to a transfer or helped her to join the housing register. We have not seen evidence that the resident’s request for rehousing has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. If she is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her rehousing request, she may wish to raise a further complaint that she could refer to us to investigate.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the period from January 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 17 February 2025. Both the landlord and resident have agreed that failings were made, and the landlord upheld each of the resident’s complaints as a result. We have therefore summarised some of the key failings and how this impacted on the resident. The landlord identified some key themes that were evident during this investigation. This included:
- Delays and poor follow up – the landlord delayed the resolution to the leaks from the roof and guttering and the associated damp and mould issues that the resident reported throughout the complaints process and beyond this. For example:
- The landlord contractors that carried out work to the chimney stack previously in January to February 2023 recommended improved ventilation. It arranged to install air bricks and to treat mould in May to June 2023, but its records are unclear whether the air bricks were fitted. The landlord inspected and relaced some loft insulation on 10 January 2024, but this was outside of its 7-day target timescale.
- The resident reported a further leak on 13 February 2024. The landlord arranged an inspection on 19 March 2024, but it could not gain access. The landlord’s records were unclear what repairs if any went ahead in May 2024. The landlord’s summary said that repairs to the roof were completed within its 90-day repairs policy timescale in June 2024. This pre-dated its new policy. Under the previous policy, roof repairs should have been completed within 28 days.
- After its contractor attended on 8 November 2024, the landlord did not check the work, despite its external damp surveyor identifying a potential leak and blocked gutters on 11 November 2024.
- The roof repairs did not start until 28 April 2025 postdating the internal complaints process. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy 90-day timescale for major repairs which was inappropriate. The ongoing issue took the landlord over 2 years to properly rectify.
- The landlord arranged to replace the extractor fans on 5 December 2024 within its repairs policy 28 calendar day timescale which was appropriate. However, its contractor did not replace the fans, as they said it was not necessary. The landlord did not follow up, despite this being a recommendation from a damp specialist. It subsequently decided to replace the fans in December 2025, a year later which took too long. A lack of ventilation was highlighted in 2023, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered replacing the fans earlier which was inappropriate.
- Quality of the work – the landlord failed to complete consistent post-inspections leading to repeated contractor visits and failed repairs. The resident also reported a safety issue with a loose scaffolding pole in May 2024. Although the landlord told the resident on 17 January 2025 it would instruct a different contractor due to quality concerns and failed roofing repairs, it could have considered this sooner. It later identified issues with the new contractor which led to a joint visit on 7 April 2025.
- Failed appointments – the landlord and its contractors sometimes attended during school pick up times despite the resident saying this was unsuitable. For example, in their email of 15 May 2024. The resident took time off work on several occasions to wait for the landlord or its contractors to call but no one had turned up. For example, the landlord failed to attend as planned on 12 September 2024.
- Risk assessment – the landlord needed to appropriately risk assess the situation, but we have not seen that it did this in line with its damp and mould policy to prioritise repairs where there were vulnerabilities.
- Repeat visits and unannounced visits – the resident said this caused disruption and distress aggravating her anxiety. They said that an unannounced visit in the evening on 19 May 2024 detrimentally impacted on their son due to his autism as it caused a change of routine. The landlord was right to check the safety of the scaffold but needed to give some advanced warning of when it would call.
- Poor records management and communication – we have outlined this below. This led to additional inconvenience and distress to the resident in chasing up, for example between 25 June to 9 August 2024 which was inappropriate.
- Delays and poor follow up – the landlord delayed the resolution to the leaks from the roof and guttering and the associated damp and mould issues that the resident reported throughout the complaints process and beyond this. For example:
- During this investigation, we also identified further failings. We have seen no records that the landlord provided any dehumidifiers that could have helped in the drying out process when water leaks occurred. The resident subsequently complained about damage to their belongings due to the prolonged exposure to damp that they were seeking compensation for. The resident told us how she tried to clean the mould off which she also reported to the landlord when it found no mould.
- The landlord said it would cover the full cost of the resident’s report of damaged items that had either been already disposed of or about to be disposed of. The resident confirmed to us that it had paid this. This was reasonable as its compensation policy states that would normally refer a resident to their own home contents insurer unless it had evidence that a financial loss had occurred.
- Following the end of the internal complaints process, the landlord included the property on its roof replacement programme. The roof was replaced by 23 October 2025, though during the work rainfall caused further water penetration. This would not have been the landlord’s fault, but it caused the resident further distress. The resident told us that there had been no further leaks.
- The landlord’s compensation of £200 offer in its final complaint response of 15 August 2024 was not broken down between this complaint issue and the fencing. We have apportioned £100 of this towards the distress and inconvenience in relation to the roof leaks, damp and mould complaint issue and £100 towards the fence complaint issue. It also offered a £100 decorating voucher which was appropriate at that time.
- The landlord also awarded £700 for distress caused to the resident for its failure to resolve the recurrent leaks, damp and mould issues in its final complaint response of 17 February 2025. This was in line with its compensation policy where there has been a medium impact. However, the Ombudsman considers that the £800 for the distress and inconvenience offered during both complaints does not fully compensate the resident for the failings we have identified. This is due to the high impact to the resident whose circumstances were known to the landlord. It is also due to the lengthy timescale that the issues went on for without a full resolution.
- The Ombudsman has found maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property. The landlord has taken some steps to put things right and to pay for the damaged items. However, the issue was ongoing for over 2 years before effective repairs were completed following the end of its internal complaints process.
- Having carefully considered our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 in compensation. This recognises the additional distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to the landlord’s continued failings. It recognises the aggravating factors due the resident and their son’s vulnerabilities. This gives a total order of compensation of £1,150 (inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £800 for the distress and inconvenience and £100 as a decorating voucher).
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the fence panels in the garden |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident reported issues with the rear fencing panels initially on 21 March 2022 following a storm. There was gap until February 2024. We have not investigated the resident’s earlier reports from 2022 as this was not referred to us to investigate within 12 months of the matter arising.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the period from February 2024 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 15 August 2024 when the landlord issued its final complaint response where this was a complaint issue.
- The landlord logged a job to replace 12 fence panels on 26 February 2024; however, it found that trees and shrubs prevented the replacement from taking place, but it did some work to make safe on 17 May 2024. During the landlord’s inspection of 23 May 2024 for the leaks and damp, it also inspected the fence and found that 4 fence panels required replacement rather than 12. The landlord reported the issue with the tree and shrubs again. The landlord said in its complaint response of 15 August 2024 that it would need to check who was responsible for the tree evidencing it had not followed up on this issue. We have seen no evidence that it kept the resident informed of this either which was inappropriate.
- Although work was due to be completed to the fence in May 2024, the landlord’s roofing contractor’s scaffolding inhibited access to the garden which was through the property as it was a terraced property. The landlord needed to ensure oversight to avoid this situation from occurring and to consider when an appropriate time could be made to avoid a failed appointment. This was inappropriate.
- After the landlord’s final complaint response of 15 August 2024, the resident chased up the landlord again on 9 December 2024. The landlord’s records evidence that it completed the full fence replacement until May 2025. It therefore took the landlord 15 months to complete all of the fencing work which was outside of its policy timescale which was inappropriate.
- As a remedy, the landlord offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident by its failings. The Ombudsman considers that this does not fully recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. This includes the unreasonable delays to replace the panels and to keep the resident informed of progress avoiding unnecessary chase ups that the resident described had caused anxiety. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the fence panels in the garden.
- After carefully considering our guidance on remedies as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. The resident informed us of the anxiety and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in her having to chase the landlord to get it to do any work. This gives a total compensation of £250 (inclusive of the £100 offered by the landlord).
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the associated complaints |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident complained to the landlord initially on 20 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 March 2024 within 5 working days as per its policy and the Code. It wrote to the resident on 12 April 2024 to extend its response timescale to 24 April 2024. However, it did not respond until 26 April 2024 which was 21 working days after its acknowledgement. The Code does allow an extension, though this should be no longer than a further 10 working days so this the landlord’s response was marginally delayed, though a 1-day delay would not cause undue detriment to the resident.
- The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require an acknowledgment to be sent at each stage within 5 working days. It requires a response to be given at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement with any extension not exceeding a further 10 working days. It requires a response to be given at stage 2 within 20 working days with any extension not exceeding a further 20 working days.
- The resident escalated this complaint on 11 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 20 May 2024 within 5 working days as per its policy and the Code. It issued a stage 2 complaint response on 25 June 2024 which was 25 working days after its acknowledgement which was outside of its policy and the Code timescale to respond which was inappropriate.
- However, the landlord sent an amended stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2024 in response to the resident’s request of 13 August 2024 for an updated stage 2 complaint response. They requested this due to an inaccuracy in its previous response. This was a minor correction and so the landlord should have reissued the response when it came to light on 3 July 2024 rather than waiting for the resident to chase the matter on several occasions which was inappropriate.
- The resident raised a further complaint on 12 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days as per its policy and the Code. Whilst the complaint concerned further leaks, damp and mould and associated repair issues the resident raised events that happened after the landlord’s previous complaints process. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord needed to raise a new complaint to investigate the further issues.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2024 which was 21 working days from its acknowledgement. This was delayed but the landlord extended the response to this date so the resident was aware of this which was appropriate. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 3 December 2024 and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 February 2025. The landlord extended its response timescale again but did not reply when it said it would which was inappropriate.
- The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaints. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This recognises the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident who had to chase on several occasions during the complaints process for the landlord to respond appropriately and in line with its complaints policy.
Learning
- The landlord has identified some learning from the resident’s complaint. It is introducing a new repairs management system to improve its communication and response to residents to repair issues from Spring 2026. It has created a new team to bring together resources to tackle damp and mould. These changes should help the landlord to improve its communication, record keeping and response to damp and mould issues.
Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication
- The landlord’s poor record keeping led to poor follow up and management of the complaint issues. We recommend that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management (if it has not already done so) against our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
- The landlord’s poor communication led to failed and repeat visits. Its miscommunication with its contractor led to the former roofing contractor contacting the resident along with the new contractor causing unnecessary confusion and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did not dispute its poor communication in its complaint responses. It described the learning from the complaint and what it would do to improve its communication in the future.