English Rural Housing Association Limited (202443526)

Decision
Case ID	202443526
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	English Rural Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom house with her adult son. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities including depression and a personality disorder. The resident provided it with medical records which show previous substance abuse.  The resident confirmed that she moved out of the property in July 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs following flooding.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. An unacceptable behaviour warning to the resident.
   4. Errors with the service charges.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following flooding.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an unacceptable behaviour warning to the resident.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of errors with the service charges.
   5. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs following flooding

5. The landlord failed to undertake the safety checks to the property promptly when it was alerted the resident had returned to the property and following sewerage entering the property. There were also some delays in it providing updates to the resident. While the landlord made reasonable subsistence payments during temporary rehousing, it offered no compensation for noted failings.

Concerns about staff conduct

6. While the landlord carried out an investigation into the resident’s concerns it did not adequately refer in depth to these in its formal responses to her.

Unacceptable behaviour warning to the resident

7. The landlord acted in line with its antisocial behaviour policy in its communication to the resident. It did acknowledge the stress the resident was under and referred her to her tenancy agreement.

Errors with the service charges

8. The landlord promptly dealt with the issue once alerted to it and sent revised communication to the resident.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord responded to the resident in keeping with its policy timescales at both stage 1 and stage 2.

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 19 December 2025
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs following flooding. £100 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the concerns about staff conduct. 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 made.	No later than 19 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 January 2024	Flooding occurred affecting the resident’s property.
22 February 2024	A second flood occurred while remedial work following the previous flood was being undertaken.
5 January 2025	Flooding occurred which spread to the resident’s property.
8 January 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to set out her complaint. She said: The landlord had delayed in carrying out remedial work following each previous flood. She referred to floods going back to 2019. Personal comments were made to her by the landlord’s staff on multiple occasions. The landlord had written to her just after she had experienced the first flood in 2024 warning her about her behaviour. She said the letter was lacking in understanding or compassion and was sent to cover up the poor service she was receiving from the landlord’s staff. The landlord had provided her with service charge statements which included incorrect charges.
16 January 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident and issued a notice to seek possession (NOSP). It said this was on the basis that the property was prone to flooding. It said it would assist with relocating the resident.
21 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response setting out it would only be considering the floods from January 2024 onwards. It said: It needed to be satisfied the property had adequately dried out before any assessment could be carried out of the damage and the work needed. This was on a case-by-case basis and so differed for each property. A number of different contractors were needed to carry out remedial work. This may have led to some of the delays due to the scheduling and availability of the contractors. It had not found sufficient evidence to confirm the inappropriate or personal comments by its staff, but it did apologise for any distress caused to the resident. It had written to the resident on 25 January 2024 following receiving WhatsApp messages from her. It said the letter set out the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement and that unacceptable behaviour towards staff would not be tolerated. It added the letter acted as a warning and acknowledged the stress the resident was under at the time. It had written to the resident on 26 September 2024 apologising for the error in the statements it had sent her earlier that month. Amended service charge statements were re-issued to her.
1 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She did not provide any further information to the landlord.
3 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response following a panel meeting on 18 February 2025. It said: The timeframe for the remedial works was extensive in part due to managing a number of trades and specialist contractors. It accepted the impact this could have had on the resident. Although it maintained there was insufficient evidence of the comments made by its staff, ongoing training was provided to all of its employees. It added an apology had been provided to the resident over the matter. The letter sent to the resident in January 2024 about unacceptable behaviour was in line with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy. It said the letter acknowledged the stress the resident was under at the time but that its staff should not be subjected to any abuse as they undertook their roles. During the rent review in 2024 incorrect service charge information was provided to the resident. It had reissued the correct service charge information and apologised for the matter promptly which it considered was reasonable action to take.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us and said she wanted the landlord to: Rehouse her as it had provided her with the NOSP. Compensate her for the stress and inconvenience caused as well as her having to pay rent while not living there.
28 July 2025	The resident ceased being a resident of the landlord following moving.

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 repairs following flooding
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

10. The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord about issues with her air source heat pump (ASHP) and the associated costs of this. This issue has been considered by the landlord who issued her its formal responses. The resident has referred the matter to us as she remains dissatisfied with its final response. As the landlord dealt with this issue separately to the issue of the flood, this investigation will not focus on that matter. Instead, a different complaint has been set up for the ASHP, and we will write out to the resident under a different case reference in due course.
11. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her own and her son’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her 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 have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

12. The evidence provided indicates that the flooding which occurred to the resident’s property was as a result of excessive rainfall and other contributory factors, which were not the direct fault of the landlord. However, it still had a responsibility under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy to attend to both repairs and to ensure the safety of the property. It therefore had an obligation to respond to the resident’s report of each flooding. In doing this it could try to take action to prevent any recurrence of it. In addition, it had to make good any resulting damage to the property.
13. The landlord’s repair policy provided to this Service, from 2022, does not set out any details on the categorisation of repairs or details of response times by it. A more recent policy, issued after the resident made her complaint, does now set out the various categories and response times. It says for emergency repairs the target response time is to attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe. Emergency repairs include the total loss of power, blocked drains or situations which pose a health or safety risk. While it is appropriate that the landlord has now set out its priorities and response timesthe absence of this in the earlier policy would have contributed to the shortcomings in its handling of events.
14. The evidence provided by both parties to the landlord’s response to the first instance in January 2024 is that it responded reasonably. The landlord was in communication with the resident shortly after being alerted to the flooding on 2 January 2024. In addition to telephone conversations the landlord was also communicating with her via WhatsApp. The landlord confirmed that it was organising sandbags and would update her about the matter. This was reasonable action for it to initially take.
15. The landlord’s records show that it was also arranging alternative accommodation for the resident (as well as her neighbours) and that this was booked for the resident on 2 January 2024. The landlord attended the property on 3 January 2024, the day after being alerted to the matter and took photos of the damage. This was in keeping with the general timescales of an emergency repair to ensure that it was safe. It confirmed that the electricity was working in the property.
16. The landlord has confirmed us that it did not have a decant policy at the time. It has said in the absence of this that it did have internal emergency procedures which it followed. This included ensuring the property was safe and that in the event that it needed to carry out emergency repairs following a disaster (such as flooding) that it would temporarily move residents out of their properties to enable it to do this.
17. The landlord began the process of removing the damaged items by arranging skips to be ordered. While this took a few days to arrive, this was out of the control of the landlord as it was being provided by a third party. The landlord would also have not been in a position to do this until it was aware of the degree of damage following a visual inspection.
18. Although the landlord had arranged the temporary accommodation for the resident, it was informed on 9 January 2024 that the resident was not using it and had instead returned home. It arranged to get an electrical check of the property. This was in accordance with its responsibilities to ensure the property was safe. The landlord explained to the resident on 10 January 2024 that she needed to return to the temporary accommodation as a full electrical installation condition report (EICR) was required and this was not scheduled until 17 January 2024, after 5 working days.
19. Following the completion of the EICR when the resident returned to the property the landlord arranged for dehumidifiers to be provided to help to dry it out. This was appropriate and in keeping with accepted good practice. The resident expressed concerns about the increased costs associated with running the dehumidifiers. The landlord responded appropriately by covering the increased electrical costs, associated with the dehumidifiers based on them running all day. It promptly replaced a dehumidifier when the resident said the original one was faulty.
20. The landlord’s records show that in addition to arranging the works, it also made a payment of £250 from its hardship fund. This was a discretionary payment not covered by any of the landlord’s policies. This demonstrates that the landlord was looking supported the resident during the time.
21. The communication from the resident at the time shows that she was unhappy with the overall time to resolve the situation and that she had to live with the disruption while the repairs were taking place. We recognise that the this was a period of considerable disruption for the resident. However, there is no specific timescale noted under the landlord’s repair policy for the completion of major works.
22. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 January 2024 with an update on the work and the next steps. It also gave her a breakdown of the actions it had taken since being made aware of the flooding on 2 January 2024. The ongoing actions included it taking further moisture readings to assess the damp. Dependent on whether the property had adequately dried the landlord said that carpentry work would follow. It added that the date it was due to start, and extent would be discussed prior to the work taking place.
23. Following a visit on 29 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that some of the work could begin but it was unable to undertake all of them as the property was not fully dried out. It clearly set out the remedial work it would be undertaking. It also continued to communicate with the resident over the concerns that she had, which was appropriate.
24. The resident informed the landlord on 22 February 2024 that further flooding resulted in the overflowing of sewage into the property. While the landlord did arrange for a scrub to take place in the property on 27 February 2024, this was 3 working days later. Given the landlord’s requirements to ensure its properties are fit for human habitation under the 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act this delay was unreasonable.
25. Given the close proximity of the flood in February 2024 to the earlier one the landlord ought to have been more alert of the remedial work needed and the steps it needed to do to do. Instead, there was an absence of any updated communication with the resident until 14 March 2024. Even at that time, the contact with the resident only followed it being made of a complaint by her about the conduct of its staff. There was a further gap in communication from 15 March 2024 to 24 April 2024 and after 13 May 2024 when it was due to inspect the property. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not always been the case here. The absence of records for lengthy periods amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
26. Following the further flooding on 5 January 2025, the landlord arranged for temporary accommodation for the resident as well as arranging for electrical tests. It requested these tests to be done within the next couple of days which showed it had learnt from the delays in the electrical tests done in 2024. The resident informed it that she did not wish to be moved. The landlord explained that it was unable to guarantee the safety of the property for her return at that time. This was appropriate.
27. The resident informed the landlord on 8 January 2025 that staying in a pub was not good for her due to her previous medical history. There is no evidence that it responded to her concerns about her staying in a pub due to her previous history of substance abuse. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord. It would have been aware from the previous floods that the resident would not wish to leave her property and instead would want to begin the process of cleaning to ensure repairs could take place quickly.
28. The landlord issued the resident with a NOSP on 16 January 2025 citing that the property was prone to flooding. This had followed on from a third-party report which it had carried out on the risk of flooding. Although the landlord provided the resident with notice of its intentions and confirmed that it would be supporting her to find alternative accommodation the timing of its correspondence could have been better. It was aware that the resident had experienced further flooding for the third time in a year a few days earlier and that the impact of this event would have caused her distress and inconvenience. It would have been appropriate for it to have had the opportunity to discuss the matter at length face to face. Instead, the correspondence was given to her, and she was invited to a meeting later on the same day to discuss the next steps.
29. The landlord has confirmed that from 16 January 2025 it made a disturbance payment to the resident at a rate of £10 a day. It has said that this payment was a goodwill payment made, which was usually payable if there were no catering facilities in temporary accommodation. It understood that the resident (and her adult son) had moved into her mum’s property which had cooking facilities, instead of temporary accommodation. It said it did not wish to penalise her for doing this. This was reasonable. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of how the level of disturbance payment was calculated. It said the amount was at its discretion. The weekly payment (payable to both the resident and her son) was more than her weekly rent which she was still responsible for, thus we have found the payment to be appropriate.
30. We understand that the landlord continued to pay this disturbance payment until 22 June 2025 when the resident was moved into temporary accommodation, which the landlord fully covered the rent for. This had followed the resident’s contact with it over the matter; due to ongoing issues she had living with her mum. This was appropriate action for it to take upon being contacted by her. The landlord also confirmed that following the resident giving up possession of the property on 28 July 2025 it made a home loss payment to her of £8,100, which was in accordance with the prescribed amount for the property.
31. Overall, while the landlord did act in accordance with its repair responsibilities following the floods in 2024 and 2025, there were a series of failures which had an impact on the resident. These included occasions where there were gaps in its communication and updates to her. There was also a small delay in it carrying out the EICR in 2024, despite it suspecting she had returned to the property as well as it carrying out a clean following contaminated sewerage entering the property. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities; however, it did not act on this when sourcing her alternative accommodation following the flood in January 2025. It also could have handled the issue of the NOSP better. There was also evidence of poor record keeping.
32. Our order for the landlord to pay compensation of £250 to put things right for the resident is in accordance with our remedies guidance. This is as while it acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right it failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

33. For staff conduct complaints, we expect landlords to carry out an investigation. This should generally involve it conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties before making an informed decision based on the findings. In our investigation, we rely on the evidence supplied to us to determine what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
34. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not refer to having spoken to the member of staff from which the comment had been made to the resident concerning her hair. It said it had spoken to the member of staff in its stage 2 response but did not provide any further information on the nature of the conversation. However, in its submissions to us it did provide evidence of having discussed the allegation with the member of staff at the time and reminding them of the way in which their comments could be viewed by the resident as being inappropriate, personal and distressing. This was a reasonable approach and a step we would expect it to take.
35. However, the landlord’s formal responses both referred to it finding insufficient evidence of the alleged comment which was made. This was at odds with the landlord’s contemporaneous note in which the member of staff accepted having said the comment but explained the context in which she had made it, by comparing her own receding hairline.
36. Our finding of service failure is because of the lapses in the landlord’s formal responses which said that it could not find evidence of the comment being made despite it not being disputed by the member of staff. We have ordered it to pay compensation of £100 for its failings, which is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of an unacceptable behaviour warning to the resident
Finding	No maladministration

37. The tenancy agreement sets out examples of the behaviours which would be likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. These include abusive or threatening language and harassment. It also states that the resident should not threaten, assault or act in a way that is likely to cause alarm to other people which included employees.
38. The landlord wrote out to the resident on 25 January 2024. This was in response to WhatsApp messages sent by the resident to the Regional Housing Manager. The landlord has provided a series of the messages which included one on 25 January 2024 concerning the site visit by the landlord after the flood. The resident accused the landlord of lying to environmental health about the date of the visit. Earlier messages from the resident had commented on the organisation by the landlord.
39. The messages between the parties show the resident had apologised for the error in her email on 25 January 2024 later in the day when she accepted that her dates were wrong. The landlord acknowledged the apology and said it understood the stress the resident was under however said a letter would be issued to the resident. It added that it hoped to put the matter behind it and carry on with assisting the resident. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take to show that it was still there to assist the resident while reminding her of her responsibilities.
40. We have seen a copy of the landlord’s letter to the resident. This letter was along the same lines as the WhatsApp messages in that it acknowledged the stress the resident was facing, however set out that the remarks and behaviour the resident was exhibiting towards the member of staff was not acceptable. It also reminded the resident of the terms and conditions under her tenancy. The letter ended by reinforcing that the member of staff would continue to be the resident’s point of contact for tenancy related matter and that they hoped they could work together going forward.
41. Having looked at the landlord’s correspondence and messages, we are satisfied that its actions were reasonable given the circumstances.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of errors with the service charges
Finding	No maladministration

42. The landlord’s rent setting policy set out that in addition to the rent some properties were also subject to a variable service charge relating to communal services provided by it. It added that the service charge was normally reviewed annually, in advance of the increase which applied from April.  An estimate of the service charge was made in December of the expected cost of delivering services for the following financial year. This estimate would then be advised to residents by the end of February. At the end of the financial year, a comparison would be made between the estimated cost of the services and the actual cost of them. Based on this an adjustment would made to the following year’s estimate with the aim to either recover any under-charge or refund any over-charge. This would then be notified to residents by 30 September each year.
43. Following receipt of the service charge for the year 2023 to 2024 which was issued to the resident in September 2024 she questioned some of the charges. This was via an email to the landlord on 24 September 2024 and related to repairs which were not the fault of the residents. The resident set out the specific charges she felt were incorrect. In its reply of 26 September 2024 the landlord confirmed that having looked at the matter it accepted there had been an error with the coding which led to the incorrect charge. It added the issue had now been sorted by it and that a letter and new statements would be sent out on that day to the resident.
44. We have been provided with the revised letters which the landlord issued. These were dated 30 September 2024, 2 working days after the landlord had informed the resident they would be issued. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows there were a number of messages back and forth with the service charge team about the charge. This was appropriate to ensure that the landlord was providing correct information to the resident, following an audit of the charges. The letters issued to the resident included a breakdown of the revised service charge following the finalisation of accounts for the 2023/24 period. The cover letter also provided an explanation for the slight delay in it responding to her. The landlord’s letter apologised for the error and any inconvenience caused to the resident. The letter was also issued within the timescale provided by the landlord’s policy for sending out the finalisation service charge account for the 2023/24 year.
45. In summary though there may be some minor points for internal reflection, such as the 2-day delay in issuing the revised service charge letters, the landlord handled the errors of the service charge appropriately.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

46. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process. It also requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord’s applicable complaints policy reflects these expectations.
47. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent out both its stage 1 and stage 2 response in keeping with the timescales in its policy.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs. Our spotlight report on complaints about repairs and knowledge, and information management can assist with this.

Communication

49. While the communication with the resident was generally good involving a mode of different methods and designated contacts, the landlord should have improved some follow ups to ensure timely updates with the resident. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system as well as fostering transparency and trust, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.