Midland Heart Limited (202428211)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat within a shared building. She reported leaks into her property and raised concerns about the resulting damage and repairs. She said damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings and believed this had impacted upon the health of members of the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reported leaks into the property and its repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in landlord’s handling of reported leaks into the property and its repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reported leaks into the property and its repairs.

5. The landlord’s handling of the leak repairs was poor and caused avoidable delay. The delays increased the scope of work needed and damage to personal belongings. The landlord accepted these failings and offered appropriate redress to put matters right.

Complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not respond to the complaints in line with its policy and procedures. It provided incorrect information in its stage 1 response, and it significantly delayed in accepting the stage 2 escalation. However, the landlord offered appropriate compensation to acknowledge these failures.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We are very sorry to hear about the resident’s circumstances. She believed the landlord’s failures contributed to a deterioration in her health, premature birth, and the loss of her baby. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about the impact on her health. However, it is not with our remit to determine causation, liability, or the impact on her health. Matters of personal injury or damage to health fall outside the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s insurers.
8. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations, including its duty to keep the external parts of the building in good repair. Its policies also set out its obligations for completing repairs. The landlord did not follow its repair or damp and mould policy in the handling of this case.
9. The resident initially reported the leak issues and damage to her property on 11 January 2024. There were clear service failures by the landlord and its contractors, which led to delays in handling the repairs. Poor communication, incomplete records, and an administration error meant that repairs were closed without the resident’s knowledge.
10. From July 2024, the resident reported that the leak continued and the internal damage, including the damp and mould, worsened. She raised further concerns in September 2024 because she was afraid the damp and mould were affecting her health and unborn baby. Further poor communication and inaccurate records meant repairs were again incorrectly closed as completed in September and October 2024, although they were still outstanding. This was unreasonable and caused detriment to the resident as the issues continued without resolution, she was also unaware that the repairs had been closed.
11. Following intervention from the resident’s MP on 23 February 2025, the landlord attended on 28 February 2025 and carried out damp and mould treatment to eliminate any risk. This delay of over a year was unreasonable and was a significant failure, given its policy at that time said this work should have been completed within 28 days. All roof and internal repair works were completed between 28 February and 15 March 2025. This included damp and mould surveys completed before and after the works as required by its policy.
12. During repair work, the resident was further inconvenienced on 14 March 2025, when her property was left with no hot water or heating. Poor communication between the contractor and landlord meant the resident was unaware gas remained off for legitimate reasons. It was not an environment that she should have been left in. However, when she immediately raised concerns, the landlord considered her vulnerabilities, and she was decanted to a hotel for the weekend. It was appropriate for the landlord to take this action in the circumstances. It was also reasonable that landlord reimbursed costs of the temporary move.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged all its service failures in its handling of the repairs that we have identified. It provided full details of its thorough investigation and offered £2,500 compensation. In addition, it offered full redecoration of the resident’s property as a goodwill gesture, which was completed by October 2025 along with replacing carpets. The compensation recognised the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the impact of the identified service failures. These included delays, poor communication, not following the no‑access process, and not responding to key emails. The landlord was correct to explain say that its complaints policy could not assess matters involving personal injury and that alternative routes existed for such claims.
14. The resident told us that she refused the compensation offer. She said she was reluctant to accept it because she was unclear whether it was a final offer for a personal injury claim. The landlord told us it had considered the repair issues caused a high level of distress and inconvenience and offered redress for this. It also said it did not prevent the resident from pursuing a personal injury claim.
15. We consider both the events that led to the complaint and how the landlord responded. We also look at whether the landlord recognised any failings and took reasonable steps to put things right. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the service failures, carried out the required works, and offered compensation and redecoration. These actions were in line with what we expect a landlord to do when addressing its failings. Taking all circumstances into account, and excluding concerns of personal injury, we consider the £2,500 compensation to be reasonable redress when compared with our remedies guidance. It is a suitable amount for a case involving multiple failures which have resulted in a detrimental impact of stress and inconvenience over an extended period.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
17. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. The investigation at stage 1 relied on incomplete and incorrect records. This resulted in incorrect information being given to the resident, including that works had been completed when they were still outstanding.
18. Following the resident expressing dissatisfaction with the stage 1 outcome on 23 July 2024, the landlord unreasonably delayed escalating the complaint to stage 2. This was despite the resident raising the matter twice more in September 2024. The resident was inconvenienced because she spent more time approaching her local MP, who then contacted the landlord. This was when the landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 on 5 March 2025. It issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2025. This delay of around eight months was unreasonable.
19. In conclusion, the landlord recognised the service failures in its complaint handling. It apologised to the resident, and the £2,500 compensation provided redress for this aspect. After considering the case and our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord’s compensation offer sufficient to also address the poor complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. It is evident that poor and inaccurate record keeping contributed to delays in the repairs and affected the landlord’s ability to complete a robust investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data, which could include better training, clearer guidance, or additional staff support. The KIM spotlight report provides eLearning and tools that landlords may find useful when strengthening its management information practices.

Communication and complaint handling

21. The landlord told us that, following its stage 2 investigation, it provided its staff with refresher training on complaint handling. It was positive that the landlord had taken steps to improve future complaint handling by learning from its own failures. This shows a willingness to learn from the complaint and prevent similar issues arising in the future.
22. It is commendable that the landlord provided evidence showing it had addressed the communication issues identified. It shows it had liaised with contractors to improve future practice and ensure issues did not recur.