Midland Heart Limited (202412035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412035

Midland Heart Limited

31 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of rodent infestation.
2. Response to concerns about staff conduct.
3. Handling of a move to temporary accommodation.
4. Response to reports about a neighbour’s dog.
5. Communication.
6. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records show the resident has health issues.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2024. The complaint was about staff conduct, a neighbour’s dog and the landlord’s communication. The resident said the issues were affecting her physical and mental health.
On 16 May 2024 the resident sent a further complaint to the landlord about staff conduct, a neighbour’s dog, the landlord’s communication and the handling of a decant to temporary accommodation.
On 21 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint sent by the resident on 11 April 2024.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2024. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for costs she had incurred because of the decant.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2024. It said it was investigating the staff conduct issues the resident had raised. The landlord said it would update the resident when the investigation was finished. It apologised for not acknowledging receipt of the resident’s complaint and awarded £50 compensation.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and awarded £100 compensation. It stated the following:
1. It had interviewed staff and reviewed statements and the information provided by the resident. It found no evidence to support the allegations of staff misconduct.
2. It had engaged with the resident when arranging the decant to temporary accommodation. It had sought to accommodate the resident’s health issues but the resident had accepted the hotel did not have an “adapted” room. It had booked a hotel near the resident’s property and her GP, and organised parking for the resident.
3. Because the resident was moved temporarily to a hotel without cooking facilities it had provided a food allowance. This was calculated at £10 per day and it had paid £210 to the resident on 24 May 2024.
4. The resident had moved to a different hotel without talking to the landlord. It was not liable for the costs incurred by the resident at the alternative hotel.
5. It inspected the communal garden on 19 June 2024. The grass was freshly cut and there was no littering or dog fouling.
6. The resident said the landlord’s phone lines were down when she called. This was because it occasionally closed the lines for staff training. When this happened, calls were diverted to the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ service.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 14 August 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said to put matters right the landlord should stop harassing her and refund the costs she incurred because of the decant.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of rodents at the property.
A court judgement issued on 9 May 2024 said the resident had agreed to allow access to the property for the landlord to carry out works that included “rodent mice eradication”. On 5 July 2024 the court confirmed the landlord had carried out the works.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters that were the subject of court proceedings. The eradication of mice at the property was included on the schedule of works that formed part of court proceedings. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of rodent infestation is outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Scope of investigation
The resident complained to the landlord about the behaviour of staff members. Internal disciplinary processes are for the landlord to manage. Our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaints made by the resident.
The resident complained about the conduct of several members of staff. This included the behaviour of staff during a court hearing. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters that were the subject of court proceedings. Furthermore, concerns of this nature would be handled most effectively by the judge or court officials. This investigation will therefore not consider the behaviour of the staff during the court hearing. It will, focus instead on the other staff behaviour issues raised by the resident.
The resident made further complaints about staff conduct after the landlord sent its final complaint response. We are unable to consider subsequent complaints as part of this investigation. If, after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response on those matters, the resident remained unhappy, she could make a separate referral to the Ombudsman. This investigation looks at the resident’s complaint about staff conduct up to the landlord’s final response on 16 August 2024.

The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.

The resident complained to the landlord on 11 April 2024 that staff had mocked, threatened and bullied her. She referred to an incident on 20 March 2024, when she said an operative had shouted at her. The resident said she felt intimidated by the operative. On 7 June 2024 the resident reported a further incident. She said on 29 May 2024 a staff member had “harassed her with phone calls”.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will contact the resident to understand the complaint and investigate. The landlord has provided no evidence it tried to contact the resident to understand better the issues she reported. This was inappropriate and would have given the impression to the resident the landlord was not taking the issues seriously.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2024. It said it was investigating the resident’s complaints about staff behaviour and would update her when the investigation completed. As part of its investigation, the landlord interviewed the staff members the resident had complained about. The landlord’s final complaint response, sent on 16 August 2024 did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
It was reasonable for the landlord to interview the staff concerned as part of its investigation. The evidence provided shows the interviews were extensive and in-depth. However, there is no evidence it tried to contact the resident during the investigation. While the landlord said the resident asked not to be contacted by phone, it is unclear when this request was first made. The landlord could have written to the resident to offer her the opportunity to discuss the allegations and contribute to the investigation. The landlord acted unreasonably in not doing so.
The landlord’s final complaint response addressed staff behaviour during the court hearing and a visit to the resident’s property on 7 May 2024. It found no evidence of unprofessional behaviour or misconduct. The landlord did not address allegations about incidents the resident said occurred on 20 March 2024 and 29 May 2024. It is unclear if the landlord investigated these allegations. The landlord acted unreasonably in not investigating all the issues raised by the resident.
In summary, the landlord conducted extensive interviews of staff members, but it did not offer to speak with the resident about the allegations. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it investigated all the allegations. This would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the investigation and exacerbated her distress. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £200 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there is a failure which adversely affected a resident.

The landlord’s handling of a move to temporary accommodation

A court judgement from a hearing on 9 May 2024 noted the resident had agreed to be moved temporarily to a named hotel from that date for at least 14 days while works to the property were completed. It also noted the resident had agreed the arrangements for the handling of her belongings.
On 9 May 2024 the resident told a staff member who phoned about the temporary move, not to contact her again. After she left the property, the resident exchanged text messages with the landlord on 15 May 2024. During the exchange, the resident said she urgently needed a specific staff member’s contact number. The staff member the resident had asked not to contact her responded. They said it was not possible to provide the requested phone number and asked if they could assist. The resident accused the staff member of mocking her and restated her request for them not to contact her. A file note added by the staff member on 24 May 2024 said in accordance with the resident’s wishes, they would not contact her in the future.
The landlord’s decant policy says, “communication is key to successful management of a decant process”. The policy says a variety of communication methods will be used depending on a resident’s needs. It says the landlord will provide a named member of staff for a resident to contact for advice and information about the temporary move.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a named contact. When the resident left her property, although the landlord contacted her about the gas and electricity it did not check on her wellbeing. Furthermore, when the resident asked for the phone number of a staff member, an individual the resident had asked not to contact her responded. The landlord acted inappropriately by not following its decant policy. It acted unreasonably in not checking on the resident’s wellbeing or arranging for a different member of staff to contact her.
On 16 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and complained about the hotel. The resident said the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments. She said the hotel was unsuitable and she had called the landlord several times about this, but no one had got back to her. She said she had been unable to change rooms and had therefore left the hotel.
The landlord’s decant policy says its approach is to provide a “responsive and supportive service throughout the process”. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident after receiving her letter about the hotel. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident after being alerted to problems she was experiencing. However, it did not get in touch with the resident until 29 May 2024, when the landlord texted the resident to say she could return to her property. This was unreasonable and meant the landlord missed the opportunity to provide timely support to the resident.
On 3 June 2024 the resident complained the landlord had not covered the costs of the temporary move. The resident said the hotel she was placed in was unsuitable and she had to move. She asked the landlord to pay £5,000 immediately to cover the cost of moving to another hotel.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had checked the resident’s requirements prior to booking the hotel. It said it had explained the hotel did not have “adapted” rooms and the resident had accepted this. The landlord said it had provided parking and ensured the hotel was a short distance from the resident’s GP. The landlord’s decant policy says it will, wherever possible “adopt a flexible approach” and consider personal preference. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging the decant and consulting with the resident before she moved to the hotel.
The landlord said because the hotel did not have cooking facilities it had provided a food allowance. The allowance was £10 a day for the period from 9 May 2024 to 29 May 2024. The landlord paid the resident £210 on 24 May 2024. It said it was unaware of any issues with the hotel and was not liable for the £5,000 costs the resident was claiming.
The landlord’s decant policy says it will “usually pay a disturbance allowance to cover any reasonable costs”. The policy says the amount paid varies according to circumstances and must be evidenced by receipts. The landlord paid the resident a food allowance for the duration of the hotel booking. The landlord acted reasonably in paying the daily rate for accommodation without cooking facilities.
The landlord had discretion to assess whether the expenses the resident was asking to claim were “reasonable”. However, contrary to the information in its final complaint response, the resident had alerted it to issues with the hotel. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to say the resident had not told it she was experiencing issues with the temporary accommodation. However, we have seen no evidence the resident told the landlord she was moving to a different hotel before she moved back to the property. This would have given it an opportunity to try to resolve matters at the hotel and, if appropriate, make alternative arrangements for the resident. Given all that, the landlord’s decision not to reimburse those costs was reasonable.
In summary, the landlord followed its decants policy and consulted with the resident when arranging the hotel accommodation. It paid the resident a food allowance for the duration of the booking. However, the landlord did not follow its policy as it failed to provide a named contact and did not support the resident during the decant. The landlord’s communication was inadequate, and it did not respond to the resident when she told it she had to leave the hotel. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a decant. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £300 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there is a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Handling of reports about a neighbour’s dog

The resident complained on 11 April 2024 about a neighbour’s dog. She said the neighbour left the dog without a lead in the communal garden and allowed it to foul in the garden. She made a further complaint about the dog on 16 May 2024 and said the dog “harassed” her.
The landlord’s website says residents must ask for the landlord’s permission before getting a pet. The website says residents are responsible for the behaviour of their pets and must ensure their pet is kept under control.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had checked the garden and there was no evidence of dog fouling or litter. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concern about the state of the garden. There is, however, no evidence the landlord investigated the neighbour’s handling of the dog and whether it was adequately controlled. This was unreasonable and meant the resident’s concerns for her safety were not addressed.
As a result, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s dog. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Landlord’s communication

The resident complained about the landlord’s communication and said the landlord’s phone lines were closed on 15 May 2024.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it occasionally closed the main phone lines in an emergency or to carry out staff training. When this happened the phone lines were transferred to its out of hours service. The service could deal with emergency repairs and advise residents when the phone lines would reopen. The landlord said it publicised planned closures on its social media channels.
The landlord acted reasonably in explaining why its phone lines were not working. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), says landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 April 2024 about staff conduct, a neighbour’s dog and the landlord’s communication.
On 16 May 2024 the resident complained about the handling of a decant to temporary accommodation, staff conduct, a neighbour’s dog and the landlord’s communication.
On 21 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint sent by the resident on 11 April 2024. The complaint was sent by post and the landlord said it was received on 23 April 2024.
The landlord took 19 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was 14 working days after the timescale required by the Code. It did not acknowledge the second complaint the resident sent. This was inappropriate.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2024. It said it was investigating the resident’s reports about staff conduct. The landlord awarded £50 compensation for failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has not provided the resident’s complaint escalation request.
On 16 August 2024 the landlord provided a final complaint response. It apologised for the failings in its complaint handling and awarded £100 compensation.
In summary, the landlord failed to provide a complaint acknowledgement. It did not comply with the Code and took too long to provide the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. However, the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failings. The redress offered by the landlord falls within the range in our remedies guidance for a failing that was short in duration and was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of rodent infestation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a decant to temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports about a neighbour’s dog.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £650 (the landlord may deduct from this amount any payment it has already made). The compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be made direct to the resident and comprises:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of reports about staff conduct.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of a decant.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of reports about a neighbour’s dog.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.