Peak District Rural Housing Association Limited (202441807)

Decision
Case ID	202441807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Peak District Rural Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 February 2026

Background

1. The resident’s kitchen was replaced during early 2023 but she was unhappy with the work carried out. She emailed the landlord during December 2023 to make a formal complaint about the kitchen. She raised other repair issues at the same time. The resident has anxiety and depression.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for repairs to the:
      1. kitchen and bathroom
      2. hallway
      3. driveway
   2. Response to the resident’s request for works to the external areas
   3. Handling of:
      1. repair appointments
      2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen and bathroom
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the hallway
   3. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the driveway
   4. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for works to the external areas
   5. service failure in the landlord’s handling of repair appointments
   6. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom

4. The landlord took appropriate action to engage with its contractors and the resident to try to complete the repairs.

Repairs to the hallway

5. The landlord’s response was in line with its damp and mould policy. Its communication set out who would carry out works and how they would progress.

Repairs to the driveway

6. The landlord’s initial response was unreasonably delayed.

Works to the external areas

7. The landlord’s response to carrying out works to the garden was unreasonably delayed. Its response to the resident’s report that slabs were broken during the works was also delayed.

Handling of repair appointments

8. The landlord tried to reduce the inconvenience caused to the resident where possible. It provided a reasonable response to her dissatisfaction about appointment of contractors. However, it failed to accurately record the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Handling of the associated complaint

9. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint in a timely manner. It also failed to carry out a stage 2 review of its response to the driveway repairs.

  

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £375 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its response to repairs to the driveway £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing external works £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repair appointments £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider arranging for relevant staff to complete the complaint handling learning module in our Centre for Learning. It can be accessed here: Complaint handling learning resources.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2023	The resident reported that she was dissatisfied with the condition of the property. She said: the hallway was damp the driveway was in a state of disrepair and was too narrow the patio to the rear of the property was unsafe the bathroom should be replaced she was unhappy with the kitchen replacement
11 December 2023	The landlord treated the resident’s report as a complaint and emailed her to acknowledge it. It said it would respond by 2 January 2024.
2 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: the resident had not previously reported issues with the hallway, patio and bathroom the resident should provide photos of the hallway and patio it would inspect the bathroom and driveway on 29 January 2024 it had tried to address issues with the kitchen but the resident had declined to provide access on 9 March 2023 due to different trades, contractors and target completion dates for repairs it was not possible to coordinate all the jobs it did not offer weekend appointments
28 August 2024	Following ongoing communication with the resident the landlord wrote to her to confirm that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2. It set out the complaint definition and said it would respond by 27 September 2024.
11 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response which said: the kitchen installer had refused to return to the property the resident had declined its offer to appoint an alternative contractor or to appoint one of her choosing it would need to inspect the kitchen to assess the works required it could arrange for its maintenance officers or a member of the ‘complaints review panel’ to visit the resident if she wished a small area of skirting needed to be replaced in the hallway it was unable to get a match with existing skirting so it would change all the skirting to match it needed the resident to confirm when she was available for it to complete the external garden works works to the hallway had been completed and post inspected it would replace the bathroom but had postponed it to the financial year 2025 to 2026 at the resident’s request the complaint was not upheld because the delays were not due to failure of service it attached a schedule of outstanding works and asked to work with the resident to make progress
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 16 March 2025 the resident contacted us to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She wanted works to be completed and compensation to be awarded.

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	Landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom
Finding	No maladministration

10. Works to replace the kitchen started on 13 February 2023. On 6 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say there were issues with the workmanship. She said she was unable to take time off work for it to carry out an inspection. The installer tried to visit the property on 9 March 2023 but was unable to access the property. The landlord’s response was reasonable. However, it could’ve tried to contact the resident after the failed visit. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 June 2023 to follow up. It replied the following day to ask the resident to confirm her address. However, it’s unclear if she replied. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. On 10 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about the kitchen. It replied the following day to acknowledge receipt. It said it would contact the resident within 3 working days. On 15 September 2023 it emailed her to confirm it was liaising with the kitchen installer.
13. On 18 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the kitchen installer thought all the issues had been resolved. The resident replied with a list of outstanding issues. She said any appointments would need to take place at the weekends. The landlord emailed her to advise this would not be possible. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances. It’s accepted that landlords will deal with non-emergency repair issues within their usual business hours.
14. The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 October 2023. It replied the following day to try to arrange to inspect. It’s unclear what happened next.
15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 January 2024 said it would inspect the kitchen and bathroom on 29 January 2024. However, the kitchen installer emailed the landlord on 26 January 2024 to say it could not attend as planned. While this was likely frustrating for the resident, it was outside the landlord’s control.
16. On 5 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it would meet the kitchen installer to agree how to progress works. It also said it would review the planned maintenance programme for bathrooms. It said it would update her in due course. Also on 5 February 2024, the kitchen installer agreed to inspect the bathroom and kitchen on 20 May 2024. The landlord was again reliant on the installer’s availability.
17. On 16 February 2024 the landlord updated the resident to say it planned to replace the bathroom in the next financial year. On 13 May 2024 it emailed her to confirm it would visit with the kitchen installer on 20 May 2024.
18. On 18 June 2024 the landlord and kitchen installer exchanged emails about an incident that had occurred during their visit to the property earlier that day. The installer alleged that the resident was verbally abusive to its operative prior to the landlord’s arrival. It said they had left site and would not return. The allegations were disputed by the resident.
19. The landlord’s email to the resident of 21 June 2024 apologised for the incident. It said the installer and resident had provided a different account of events. The matter had been escalated to its manager to liaise with them accordingly.
20. On 27 June 2024 the landlord raised a works order to replace the bathroom.
21. On 23 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on the kitchen. The landlord replied the following day to say it had arranged an internal meeting to discuss the matter. While this was positive there’s no evidence that it proactively updated the resident. Its failure to do so caused her time and trouble by having to chase.
22. On 25 July 2024 the landlord provided a further update to the resident. It said that as the kitchen installer would not attend the property it suggested they meet to discuss how to move forward. It’s unclear if the resident replied.
23. The resident’s email to the landlord of 2 August 2024 asked that the kitchen be resolved before any further works took place.
24. The landlord replied on 6 August 2024 to say the newly appointed kitchen contractor would need to visit to measure up. Its offer for the resident to appoint her own contractor as an alternative was declined by her on the same day. It was positive that the landlord considered different ways to try to progress works.
25. On 14 August 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to update that the new contractor was reviewing the start dates that she’d proposed. It reiterated the need to carry out an inspection. The resident replied on the same day to say she was unhappy that the contractor was not a qualified kitchen fitter.
26. In a further email dated 28 August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to find local kitchen fitters to come after working hours or at weekends. She again said she would not allow access for other works until the kitchen was resolved. The landlord’s reply of 30 August 2024 confirmed that some of the contractor’s operatives specialised in fitting kitchens.
27. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the quality of workmanship and the need to provide access. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord’s decision to appoint the new contractor was inappropriate. Furthermore, it’s reasonable that they would need to inspect during normal working hours.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 September 2024 asked the resident to confirm when it could attend to inspect the kitchen ahead of works. It also confirmed that the bathroom replacement was postponed at the resident’s request. It advised that the terms of her tenancy agreement required her to provide access to the landlord and its contractors to carry out work to the property. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
29. In its email to us of 5 February 2026 the landlord confirmed works to the kitchen were completed on 4 July 2025. Works to renew the bathroom were budgeted to take place in the financial year 2026 to 2027.
30. The landlord’s response was generally reasonable. It did not always proactively communicate with the resident which was a shortcoming. There were also some instances where progress appeared slow. However, it’s acknowledged that the resident’s lived experience meant she was concerned about providing access.
31. Taking the full circumstances into account, we’ve found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of repairs to the hallway
Finding	No maladministration

32. Having received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2023 the landlord emailed her the next day to request photos. She provided them on the same day. The landlord replied to say it would contact her within 3 working days.
33. On 13 December 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a damp and mould survey. It emailed the resident to update her accordingly. Its records show the contractor left 5 voicemails for the resident to book works. Following its last attempt made on 16 February 2024, it also sent a letter and text to the resident. Its response was in line with its damp and mould policy.
34. On 27 February 2024 the landlord replied to an email from the resident which said she was experiencing health issues. It suggested that they speak the following week. It’s unclear what events took place immediately after. However, on 18 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she’d had an operation. On 13 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its contractor would carry out a damp and mould survey on 20 May 2024.
35. The evidence shows the landlord tried to book appointments and that subsequent delays were outside its control.
36. The report from the damp and mould survey dated 23 May 2024 recommended that the landlord carry out works to the plaster, walls and skirting boards. On 29 May 2024 the landlord appropriately emailed the resident to say it had approved the recommended works. It said they were planned for 1 and 2 July 2024. It said the contractor had been trying to contact the resident. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
37. The landlord’s email to the resident of 21 June 2024 confirmed that works would take place on 1 and 2 July 2024. It also set out how works would be carried out. It was positive that the landlord communicated with the resident to try to reduce any anxiety caused.
38. Works to the hallway were post inspected and signed off on 9 July 2024. On 23 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the options regarding the mismatched skirting boards.
39. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 September 2024 confirmed the issues with damp had been resolved. It repeated its offer to change the skirting to make it all match and asked the resident to confirm her availability. In its update to us of 5 February 2026 the landlord confirmed there were no outstanding works.
40. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the hallway.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway
Finding	Maladministration

41. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 January 2024 said it would inspect the driveway on 29 January 2024. Its repairs policy does not set out its response time to major works. However, its response of 19 working days was reasonable in the circumstances.
42. On 5 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say its contractor had been asked to provide a quote for works. On 13 May 2024 the landlord emailed her to confirm it had chased the contractor. It’s unclear why there was a delay of 3 months. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it updated the resident during that time which was inappropriate.
43. On 23 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update. It replied the following day to say it had chased the contractor to provide health and safety documents. On 25 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say its contractor had confirmed it would provide the documents in the next few weeks. While this was positive this was 5 months after the initial inspection. Therefore its response was unreasonably delayed.
44. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 September 2024 confirmed works were postponed until the hallway and kitchen works were carried out. This was in line with the resident’s request made on 28 August 2024 as set out above. Its response was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
45. In its email to us dated 5 February 2026 the landlord confirmed that works to the driveway were completed on 4 November 2025.
46. The landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed from 29 January 2024 to 28 August 2024. Its failure amounts to maladministration because it had an adverse effect on the resident.
47. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such circumstances. In ordering £150 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s unreasonable delay.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of works to the external areas
Finding	Maladministration

48. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 January 2024 said it would inspect the patio on 29 January 2024. Following the inspection it raised a works order to clear the gardens of weeds and moss. It also asked its operative to carry out “make safe works.” However, it’s unclear what these works involved which is a record keeping failure. On 30 January 2024 the landlord raised a further works order to cut back the front hedge and carry out works to the rear garden. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
49. On 5 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say the front hedge was cut back on 2 February.
50. An entry on the repair logs dated 4 April 2024 raised further work orders following a site visit. This included works to the steps and slabs. The date and reason for the site visit are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
51. On 13 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was waiting for its contractor to confirm a date for works. It sent her a further update on 21 May 2024 to say it would attend the following week, which was positive. However, since 29 January 2024 only the front hedge had been cut back. The reason for the delay is unclear, and therefore it was unreasonable.
52. The repairs logs show the external works were completed on 28 May 2024. On 29 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was unhappy with the quality of works. This included damage caused to slabs in the garden. The landlord replied on the same day to say it had raised the issue with the contractor. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
53. It was unfortunate that the works were not carried out satisfactorily. However, the landlord tried to put things right by arranging for a different contractor to carry out a one-off garden tidy. This was completed on 17 June 2024 and signed off by the landlord on 11 July 2024. On 18 July 2024 the resident confirmed she was happy with the works carried out.
54. On 23 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to chase an update on the broken slabs. It replied the following day to say it had chased the contractor. An entry on the repair logs dated 29 July 2024 shows a recall was raised for works to the cracked slabs. While this was positive, it was 2 months since the landlord was first put on notice of the issue. Its inaction caused inconvenience to the resident because she had to follow up.
55. The landlord’s email to the resident of 30 August 2024 confirmed its contractor could attend on 12 September 2024. It asked the resident to confirm she was available. It emailed again on 9 September 2024 to seek confirmation. An internal email dated 10 September 2024 suggested the appointment be cancelled because access was not confirmed. The landlord’s position was reasonable because it needed to make efficient use of its limited resources.
56. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 September 2024 asked the resident to confirm when it could visit to complete works. In its update to us of 5 February 2026 the landlord confirmed works were completed on 18 July 2025.
57. The landlord’s response in carrying out external works including repairing broken slabs was unreasonably delayed. The failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such situations. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of repair appointments
Finding	Service failure

Appointments

58. During the resident’s communication with the landlord about the repairs set out above she raised concerns about its general handling of repair appointments. The landlord addressed these concerns in its complaint investigation. We therefore consider it reasonable to assess the landlord’s response to the overall themes.
59. On 2 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to complain about its procedure of booking in contractors and for using contractors out of area. She said she could not keep taking time off work to meet appointments for the various works.
60. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 January 2024 said it was legally required to undertake a formal tender process for its repairs service. Under this process it was unlawful to discriminate against a contractor due to their geographical location. Due to different trades, contractors, and target dates for repairs, it was not possible to coordinate all jobs and adhere to the resident’s requests regarding timescales. The landlord confirmed it did not offer weekend appointments because its contractors only attended emergencies at these times.
61. The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience to the resident by trying to group appointments where possible. For example, on 15 January 2024 it emailed the resident to set out who would attend the property on 29 January 2024 and what for. It said it was unable to confirm hourly slots between 9am and 1pm, but would try to make sure they all attended between 9am and 5pm.
62. In its further email to the resident of 19 January 2024 the landlord confirmed that inspections and works should be completed by midday. If its contractors were unable to complete them by that time further visits would need to be booked.

Resident’s vulnerability

63. On 7 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise she had anxiety and depression. She sent a further email on 14 August 2024 to say no works should be carried out inside or out until the kitchen and hallway issues were resolved.
64. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 September 2024 said some delays with works were due to the resident’s health. By way of response it acknowledged her vulnerability, deferred works, and limited contact with her.
65. While this was positive its response to our request for information said there were no vulnerability alerts on its system. It said the resident had mentioned vulnerability in her emails but never provided details, including what support needs were required.
66. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) explains the importance of accurate recording of vulnerabilities so that landlords can provide appropriate services to their residents.
67. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sensitively tried to gather more information to fully understand any barriers to progress. It would also have provided an opportunity to ask what, if any, support it could provide. Had it done so, it may have been able to progress the repairs in a timelier manner.
68. There was service failure in the landlord’s response for the reasons set out above. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate to put right the landlord’s failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In ordering £50 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to accurately record her vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

69. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales, which says that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. They should then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
70. The resident made a formal complaint on 11 December 2023. The landlord’s response was appropriately in line with the timescales set out in the Code and its policy.
71. The Code says landlords must recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider a first request for service as a complaint. Its stage 1 response identified that the resident’s complaint included issues that it was not previously aware of. While there was no detriment to the resident the landlord should have separated out the service requests for the hallway, patio and bathroom from the complaints process in line with its policy.
72. The Code says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2. The landlord’s email to the resident of 22 January 2024 acknowledged that she had expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. She said she would not provide further information because she felt the landlord already had it. On that basis it should have escalated her complaint to stage 2.
73. An internal email dated 28 February 2024 said that part of the reason for the delay was the resident’s vulnerability. The context for the landlord’s decision is unclear. However, it’s reasonable to conclude this was part of its attempt to limit contact with her as set out above. It set out its intention to escalate the complaint to the next stage. However, it did not escalate the complaint until 28 August 2024 which was 6 months later. This was an inappropriate delay.
74. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the escalated complaint was sent to the resident on 28 August 2024. It set out the complaint definition and asked the resident to provide any additional or supporting information by 4 September 2024. There’s no evidence that she did so. Its subsequent complaint response was issued within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
75. On 7 October 2024 the resident emailed the landlord because she was unhappy she had not been asked to provide input for the complaint review. Its reply of 8 October 2024 referred her to its email of 28 August 2024. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
76. In its email to us of 4 February 2026 the landlord confirmed that the driveway was included in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it was not captured by its complaint definition or in its assessment. Therefore it failed to carry out a thorough stage 2 review of its response, which was inappropriate.
77. There was service failure in the landlord’s response because it delayed in escalating the complaint and failed to appropriately address the driveway at stage 2. Our remedies guidance says that payments of between £50 and £100 should be made where the failure may not have had significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the same amounts where there had been a low level of impact. In ordering the landlord to pay the resident £100, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

78. There are some gaps in the information provided by the landlord for the purposes of this report. This has sometimes made it difficult to understand the sequence of events. The landlord should learn from the complaint to ensure it mains full and accurate records at all times.
79. The landlord should also review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management in relation to vulnerabilities. It should consider what changes it could make to improve its service to the residents.

Communication

80. There were some shortcomings identified in the landlord’s communication with the resident. However, we did not identify any overall communication failures.