Connexus Homes Limited (202424444)

Decision
Case ID	202424444
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Connexus Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 February 2026

Background

The resident moved to a 1-bedroom bungalow with her husband in April 2024. This was via the landlord’s direct let list. The landlord is aware that household members have mobility difficulties and that the resident is her husband’s carer following a brain injury. She raised a complaint in August 2024 about its handling of repairs, and rehousing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rehousing request.
2. Repairs to the resident’s shower, external lights, and rear garden.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower, external lights, and rear garden slabs.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There is no evidence to show that the landlord moved the resident to her current property on a temporary basis. However, it did not fairly apply its direct let policy at the time of the complaint.
The landlord acted reasonably by recognising delays in its handling of the shower repair at the time of the complaint. It took reasonable steps in an attempt to arrange other repairs.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its published timescales.

Putting things right

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. It must ensure the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It should also have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 March 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the time and trouble she spent pursuing her rehousing request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 11 March 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to ensure that she is receiving the correct support to maximise her housing options. It should consider referring her to a third party support service to assist her on bidding for suitable properties.	No later than 11 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm any outstanding repairs. It should take all reasonable steps to arrange the work.
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £200 it previously offered for the delay arranging the and external lighting repairs. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 and 7 August 2024	The resident sent 2 complaint letters to the landlord. In summary: She said staff told her the property was temporary when she moved in. She also referred to a letter dated 16 April 2024 which said the property was not suitable for her needs. She said staff denied this, which implied she was “lying.” She said it had not offered her any suitable properties to bid on, even though some were available. She was currently sleeping in a chair in her lounge as she could not share a bed with her husband due to his health. She was unhappy with how the landlord handled a shower repair she reported 4 weeks earlier. She also said that the external lights did not work.
22 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary: It did not uphold her complaint about rehousing. It did not find evidence to show that the move was temporary, or that staff said it was. It explained that it made the offer of her current property to move her and her husband out of an unsuitable home, where they had fallen. She had asked it to consider 1-bedroom properties to speed up the move. It wrote to her on 16 April 2024 to support her application for a 2-bedroom property via the local council. It also attended a meeting when the council had mistakenly closed her application. Its lettings policy did not allow it to move someone via a direct let because they required an extra bedroom, and the local council had banded her according to her needs. It had attended twice for the outdoor lights, and she had refused access. It explained the first visit would be an inspection so it could order the correct materials, and it was happy to book the work. There was a delay in responding to the shower repair due to confusion on its part about whether an electrician or plumber should attend. It apologised and offered £200 compensation. A plumber attended on 22 August 2024 and fixed the shower. It asked her to let it know if this was not the case. It was aware following a phone call that she was unhappy with its response and wanted to escalate the complaint.
29 August 2024	During a phone call, the resident maintained that the landlord had told her that the move to her current property would be temporary. She said she was sleeping in a chair because there was no space in the living room for a bed. She needed a second bedroom due to her husband’s medical needs. She also said she had not had a working shower since May 2024, and it had not put up the external lights. She added that tiles along the back door were broken and the garden was not level, causing falls.
20 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary: It said her move was a permanent move from her previous home. It maintained that this was due to the previous property being a health risk for her and her husband due to the stairs. It said the 1-bed property met her requirements. As she would prefer a 2-bed property, she would need to continue to bid via the local authority’s choice based letting scheme. It did not uphold this aspect of her complaint as it provided correct information and support. It would not offer a direct let due to increased bedroom need. It understood that staff could have referred to the move as “temporary” until she was successful in bidding on a 2-bed property via the council. It was happy to offer further support. Its contractors had not found an issue with the shower after running it for 20 minutes on the most recent visit. It contacted her to book a further appointment on 19 September, but she was unavailable for appointments offered. It also said she was unwilling to share her availability, and it said it would contact her again to replace the shower. It had tried to visit to inspect the area where the lights were needed, but she had refused appointments. It had since visited on 20 August and would be in touch by 1 October to book the installation. Her concerns about a cracked external tile, and uneven slabs did not form part of her complaint. It had visited and taken photos. It had attempted to book appointments and asked her to confirm when it could complete work.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as her current property was not meeting her needs, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She wanted it to move her.
Events following the complaint.	The landlord said it added the resident to its direct let list for a 2-bedroom property around April 2025. This was following another OT assessment confirming the need for a second bedroom.

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 the resident’s rehousing request.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s direct let procedure explains that it can offer a direct let to a property it owns in exceptional circumstances. This applies where the local council’s choice based letting scheme cannot meet urgent housing needs in time. The circumstances can include where a property is not suitable and cannot be adapted, or where there are safeguarding concerns.
An OT assessment from May 2021 confirmed a medical need for a 2-bedroom, level access property. This was due to the resident’s husband’s brain injury and household mobility difficulties. This specified that the resident and her husband required a second bedroom on medical grounds. The landlord added the resident to its direct let list for a 2-bedroom property in January 2023. Its decision was in line with its policy because she had not been successful through the council, and her previous home posed an immediate risk of falls.
Its records show that the resident asked it to consider offering 1‑bedroom properties in April 2023 to speed up the rehousing process. The landlord explained in June 2023 that it would only offer 1‑bed properties on this basis. The resident later accepted the tenancy for the 1‑bed bungalow in April 2024.
The resident may have understood this to be temporary, given her medical need for a 2-bed property. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord described its offer as temporary or treated it as a temporary move.
It was resolution focused for the landlord to offer a 1-bedroom bungalow to address the immediate need for level access to prevent mobility related falls. The landlord was aware that there was a medical need for the resident and her husband to have 2 bedrooms. It said that it was aware the property did not provide a solution to the 2-bedroom need in a letter on 16 April 2024. It acted reasonably by ensuring that the resident did not lose her position on the council’s register for a 2-bedroom property in May 2024.
However, the landlord did not consistently act on the ongoing medical need for a 2-bed property. In its complaint responses, it said that its policy did not allow it to offer her a direct let on the basis that she required an additional bedroom. The procedure, however, says that it can consider offering a direct let where a property is not suitable and cannot be adapted, or where there are safeguarding concerns.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2024, it said that the property met her requirements, but that she would “prefer” a 2- bedroom home. This wording did not reflect the landlord’s knowledge that the property did not meet the medical need for 2 bedrooms. The landlord had already acknowledged that the 1‑bedroom property did not provide a full solution. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider adding the resident to its direct let list for a 2‑bedroom property on the basis that the property was not suitable, as it had done in January 2023.
The landlord said it would add the resident to its direct let list for a 2-bedroom property in April 2025, following the complaint. This was after a further OT assessment carried out in or around November 2024 confirmed that the resident and her husband required 2 bedrooms. The landlord could have taken steps to maximise the resident’s housing options sooner, given that it was already aware the property did not meet the household needs at the time of the complaint.
The resident spent avoidable time and trouble pursuing her concerns and the landlord could have done more in line with its direct let procedure at the time of the complaint. Given the service failure identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble she spent pursuing a resolution. This is in line with our remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range can be proportionate where a failing adversely affected the resident, but where there may be no permanent impact.

Complaint	Repairs to the resident’s shower, external lights, and rear garden.
Finding	Reasonable redress

In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for allowing access to the property for the landlord to inspect, and complete necessary repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe. It aims to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. Faulty showers, where this was the only means of bathing, would be an urgent repair, but may be upgraded to an emergency on a case-by-case basis.

Repairs to the shower

The resident initially reported problems with the shower temperature on 31 May 2024, saying it went from scalding to cold. The landlord’s records show it raised another job on 4 June 2024, as no one attended the earlier report. It recorded fitting parts on 7 June 2024, although it is unclear what parts it fitted. The resident then reported on 11 July 2024 that the shower did not get hot. The landlord did not take steps to arrange an appointment until 15 July 2024. Given the household’s vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for it to attend both reports within its emergency repair timescales.
There was a delay in the landlord attending the property to inspect the shower until 22 August 2024. Its call records show that it had attempted to offer various appointments to the resident, but she had not been available. This includes on 15, 16, 22, and 25 July. While some of the delay was outside of its control, the landlord acted fairly by recognising that some of the delay was due to confusion about whether it needed to send a plumber or an electrician. This caused it to cancel one work order around 29 July 2024.
The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses by explaining that it had attended to check the shower on 22 and 23 August 2024 but found no fault despite running it for 20 minutes. It agreed to look at the shower again and agreed to replace the shower despite reportedly finding no fault. Its records show that it had offered an appointment on 19 September and 1 October 2024, but the resident said she was unavailable. There is no evidence to show that this delay was within the landlord’s control. It acted reasonably by asking her to confirm her availability so it could arrange the work.

Repairs to the external lights

The landlord’s repair policy confirms that the resident would be responsible for external lights, unless these were fitted due to an OT referral. It is responsible for repairing external and security lights in communal areas. We have not seen evidence to show that it was responsible for fitting external lights to the side and rear of the property.
The landlord nonetheless acted reasonably by arranging an appointment. It initially raised a repair on 26 April 2024 regarding the external lights to the side and rear of the property. Its records show that it attempted to attend on 7 May, within a reasonable timeframe. The resident said she was not made aware of the appointment in advance so did not provide access. We have not seen evidence to confirm whether she was or was not made aware of this in advance.
Following this, there was a delay in arranging a further inspection until 9 July 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident did not allow access for an inspection because the work should have been completed sooner. It is generally reasonable that a landlord may need to inspect an area before it can decide on what work it needs to complete. It acted fairly by explaining this within its complaint responses.
Its records show that it gained access to inspect the work needed on 20 September and acted reasonably by confirming it would contact her by 1 October 2024 to book the work. Its records show that it called the resident to book the work for 5 November 2024 on 3 October 2024 and left a message. However, the resident was not at home on the day. It is unclear if the work has since taken place.

External slabs, and cracked tile

The resident also raised concerns about a cracked tile and uneven paving in her rear garden. These concerns did not form part of her initial complaint. The landlord acted reasonably by including these within its stage 2 complaint response. It attended to inspect on 30 August. On 19 September 2024, its records show that it offered to complete all work on 1 October 2024, and the resident said she was not available. It also offered to attend that day, but she declined.
Call records from 19 September 2024 show that the landlord asked the resident to confirm dates she might be available, but she had declined. The records demonstrate that the landlord was trying to arrange an appointment and it was waiting for the resident to confirm her availability. It acted reasonably by confirming the work it would complete and asking her to provide suitable dates. We have not seen evidence to show that any delay was within its control.

Summary

We have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its initial failures to arrange a repair to the shower. It took reasonable steps to find out when the resident would be available for appointments at the time of the complaint. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident confirmed her availability. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was proportionate to put right the impact of the delay in arranging an inspection of the external lighting.
The resident has explained that the repairs remain outstanding and the landlord had not contacted her before turning up at the property following the complaint. We have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss whether the repairs to the shower, external lights, and rear garden remain outstanding, and takes all reasonable steps to arrange these with her.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

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 April 2024 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 14 working days. At stage 2, it responded within 21 working days. This was in line with the timeframes set out in its policies and the Code. We have not found any failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord recognised that the delay in arranging the shower work was because it did not know whether it needed to send an electrician or a plumber. The landlord should ensure it holds up to date information about the installations in its properties to prevent similar delays in future.

Communication

The landlord’s complaint response did not reflect the known medical need for 2 bedrooms. When it described this as the resident’s “preference”, it did not accurately acknowledge her circumstances. The landlord should ensure its communications reflect the information it holds so that it clearly recognises residents’ needs.