Stockport Homes Limited (202438843)

Decision
Case ID	202438843
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stockport Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with 5 other members of the household. She reported leaks into the property and raised concerns about the resulting damage and repairs. She said the leaks had resulted in damp and mould, and damage to her personal belongings. She also believed the damp and mould had affected the health of members of the household, including her children with registered disabilities.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlords handling of reported leaks into the property and its repairs.
2. 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

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

There were delays in identifying the cause of the leaks and completing follow-on repairs. The delays caused prolonged inconvenience and contributed to damage to the property and belongings. The landlord accepted that its failures contributed to these delays and acknowledged it did not follow its damp and mould policy. It offered compensation for costs and damaged belongings. However, the recurring leaks left the children’s bedroom unusable for a prolonged period, and the landlord’s compensation offer did not reflect the full impact of this issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge or log the initial complaint in line with its policy and procedures. This caused a significant delay in providing a response. There were also conflicting and confusing details in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord did not 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.

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. Also, to have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £2,298.80. This is to recognise the loss of use of the bedroom for the period between the initial report in December 2022 and when the issue was resolved in February 2025 (minus a reasonable timescale to complete works).	No later than 24 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must also pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling. The total amount of £2,398.80 must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This amount is in addition to the £2,111.90 already offered by the landlord (which it must also pay if it has not already done so).	No later than 24 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 July 2024	The resident completed the landlord’s repairs satisfaction survey and reported dissatisfaction due to: Damp problems for more than 2 years. 6-month delay in receiving an appointment. Repairs that were still outstanding.
11 September 2024	The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2024 to follow up on dissatisfaction she recorded in the survey. It asked her to provide more details about the complaint.
11 September 2024	On 11 September 2024, the resident sent detailed information about what had happened since she reported the leak. In summary, she complained about: Delays in attending to and repairing the leak she reported in November 2022. Her children could not sleep in the bedroom, as one leak was dripping into a bucket in the room. Damp, mould and condensation in the bedrooms. No one contacted her after 6 months of the roof repair, despite this being promised. The roof contractor told her they had to wait for it to dry out before starting any internal works. When she chased after 6 months, the landlord told her to raise a new repair which caused more delays. She had to buy dehumidifiers and had replaced 3 of the children’s beds and mattresses, for which she wanted the landlord to reimburse costs. The roof was not fixed and leaks started again in November 2023. She was told by contractors in December 2023 that the chimney would be taken down, which did not happen. Works were still outstanding, there was a lack of contact and she had to constantly chase. The delay in the landlord contacting her after submitting the feedback. She said the landlord told her on 11 July 2024 that it would contact her within two weeks. She described the emotional distress and financial strain to her as a full-time carer, and the impact on the rest of the family. She said 3 of her children were registered as disabled and the situation was affecting them.
12 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged that the complaint had been logged on 12 September 2024.
26 September 2024	In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £200 compensation in recognition of the stress and worry caused by long delays and poor communication. The landlord said it recognised the long period between the inspector attending (on 22 January 2024) and the roofer attending to inspect the loft space (8 July 2024). The landlord said it believed it had acted within its obligations and no service failures were identified. It said therefore, it would not contribute to the cost of replacing items. They assured the resident that contractors would make contact to arrange all outstanding work.
30 September 2024	The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She said there were discrepancies in the response details. She refused the compensation and said it did not reflect the severity of the situation her and family experienced between 2 December 2022 and February 2023. She provided receipts and requested at least £961.90 to cover costs for: £360 – 3 single beds. £370 – 2 single mattresses. £139 – dehumidifier. £19.95 – Damp paint. £72.95 – Double radiator.
7 to 31 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged escalation to stage 2 on 7 October 2024. It contacted the resident on 31 October 2024 for more information and requested a week extension to respond.
11 November 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failures and delays stopping water ingress from 2 December 2022 to 15 February 2023. It also acknowledged that, after the report of the bulging ceiling, no follow-on works were arranged after the inspection. The landlord said it accepted at times it had not resolved the issue within reasonable timeframes, particularly considering the children’s vulnerabilities. The landlord said some of the resident’s costs were likely due to accumulation of property conditions that existed before the resident reported the issue. It said however, considering the overall experience and the impact on her and the children, and for distress and inconvenience, it would offer £961.90. This offer was to cover all costs and replaced the previous £200 compensation offer. The landlord said the resident would be contacted shortly to arrange outstanding damp and mould works, extraction fans, and roof insulation. It assured the resident that the there was no ongoing leak from the roof or chimney. It said loose flashing needed to be refixed but was not likely to be a point of entry for rainwater.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us on 2 January 2025. She said further leaks during the Christmas and New Year period proved the issues with the roof had not been resolved.
7 to 29 January 2025	The resident raised another complaint to the landlord, stating the roof was still not fixed. She said the contractor told her the roof had not been sealed or secured properly. She said the water entering the property over the Christmas and New Year period had caused further damp and excessive condensation in her children’s bedroom. She provided video footage showing the level of water ingress. She said this had caused mould on the bed and water damage to her child’s computer. The resident requested reimbursement for these further costs, and compensation for the 23 months that the bedroom was not habitable. The landlord said it would not open a new complaint because the issue was the same as the previous complaint. It said it would consider increasing the compensation to cover the costs of replacing the computer and bed. It paid a further £1,150, bringing the total to £2,111.90. The landlord said that before 31 December 2024, contractors had reported the roof area was dry, which suggested this leak was a separate issue and not a longstanding issue. The landlord said they would arrange for the chimney to be removed entirely and would future–proof the property.

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 reported leaks into the property and its repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the property, including the roof and repairing leaks. The landlord’s policy says repairs should be completed within 30 days. It also says damp and mould should be attended to within 21 days and requires immediate work to clean mould, then to arrange follow-on works as per its repair policy.
There were clear delays in the landlord’s handling of the leak repairs and its response to reports of damp and mould. The resident first reported the leaks into the property on 2 December 2022. A week later she called the landlord and raised concerns about her children’s health. She said there was now a crack in the ceiling, damp and mould were spreading. She said the children had developed coughs and could not sleep in the bedroom where the water was coming in.
On 11 January 2023, the resident reported that the children’s bedroom ceiling had bowed. It was positive that the landlord arranged for an emergency visit that day to inspect. The limited notes of the visit recorded that there was torrential rain that day and the resident was told to wait until the arear dried out. There is no evidence that the landlord explained what steps it would take to resolve the leaks, or that follow-on works were arranged. It was unreasonable that the resident had to keep chasing the landlord to stop the leak. It was not stopped until 15 February 2023, when the landlord overhauled the chimney. This delay was unreasonable and was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the issue. In addition, the landlord did not show that it responded to the resident’s reports about the impact on her vulnerable household. This demonstrated that the landlord had not considered the risk as its policy required.
A repair log noted a damp and mould survey on 16 February 2023 which states works completed including mould treatment in bathroom and toilet. It did not record any work being carried out in the bedrooms. The repair log also said the resident should wait until the water inside had dried before internal works could start. The resident said she was told to wait 6 months. The resident said in her later complaint that it did not dry out during this time and the children’s bedroom remained unhabitable.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow up with the resident, and she had to chase the issue when the weather worsened and the leaks returned. Her contact on 1 November 2023 was logged as a new leak repair, which she continued to chase into December 2023. A roof inspection on 18 December 2023 found that several previous repairs had been completed on the chimney and recommended removing it. The resident said the contractor told her the chimney would be removed after Christmas. It was noted again on 26 January 2024 that a roofer had recommended removing the chimney. The repair logs do not show that the landlord carried out any further work to the chimney at that time. It was now over 12 months since the initial report of the leak, and damp and mould works were still outstanding.
There were further notable delays which were unacceptable and far beyond the landlord’s published timescales of 21 days for damp and mould, and 30 days for repairs. Examples of these delays include:
1. On 13 December 2023, the landlord raised a damp and mould treatment, which it completed over 2 months late on 22 March 2024.
2. On 26 January 2024, an inspection of the loft was raised to check for water ingress and the insulation, which it completed over 4 months late on 8 July 2024.
3. On 29 January 2024, a job was raised to install 2 extractor fans, which it completed 9 months late on 28 November 2024.
4. On 26 January 2024, a job was raised to clear the gutters, which it completed nearly 3 months late on 14 May 2024.
5. On 27 September 2024, a damp and mould treatment for returning mould in bedrooms and bathroom, which it completed a month late on 28 November 2024.
In its stage 1 response of 26 September 2024, the landlord accepted some service failures had resulted in delays. It said that, following the inspection on 18 December 2023, itconsidered whether to repair or remove the chimney, and chose to repair on value‑for‑money grounds (this was despite recommendations by roofing contractors that the chimney should be removed). The landlord said repairs were carried out between April and July 2024 and said it would arrange a wet-weather inspection.
The further roof inspection of 9 October 2024 noted that lead had come away from the chimney stack. It was unreasonable that following the inspection, the resident had to chase again for follow-on jobs to be raised.
Then in its stage 2 response of 11 November 2024, the landlord assured the resident there were no ongoing leaks from the roof or chimney. It is not clear on what basis the landlord could be confident in giving this assurance, because at the same time, it said there was outstanding work to be done on the chimney. This was also consistent with the findings from the inspection on 9 October 2024.
There was a further unreasonable delay in completing outstanding work to the chimney. It was a further detriment to the resident, that on 2 January 2025, shereported significant water ingress to the propertyover the Christmas and New Year period. She also reported further damage to belongings and described the effect this continued intrusion was having on her family, especially the children with disabilities. The landlord agreed it would remove the chimney stack, and it completed this work on 2 February 2025. A post inspection shortly after, confirmed all jobs were complete.
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.
The landlord acknowledged its service failures and accepted it had not followed its policies for repairs or dealing with the damp and mould, for which it apologised for.
It was commendable that the landlord took a supportive approach by offering redress that covered all reported costs of damage to belongings (totalling £2,111.90).It did this despite saying it had limited evidence that all the damage resulted from service failures and it had limited information about the original items and disposal dates. This went beyond its obligations under its policy, which states it is a resident’s responsibility to provide evidence and proof of ownership of damaged items prior to removal from the property. This approach shows the landlord eventually recognised the distress and inconvenience that its service failures had caused over a long period and wanted to put things right.
However, the overall delay in completing a lasting repair to the leak reported in December 2022 was unacceptable. If the landlord had removed the chimney as proposed in 2023, it is reasonable to suggest that the recurring leaks, would not have continued until 2025. The resident reported that the ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs, including damp and mould, made the children’s bedroom uninhabitable.
The resident told the landlord she was grateful to receive the award to cover her costs. She also asked for additional compensation because the bedroom had been unusable for a total of 23 months, which had caused significant distress and inconvenience to the household. However, the landlord refused this request as it believed the award to cover costs and damaged belongings was more than reasonable. The landlord did not apply its compensation policy appropriately, which states it will consider awards for loss of use of a part of the property. The policy also states that it will consider this in situations where the landlord takes an unreasonable length of time to resolve a problem.
In all the circumstances, we consider it was reasonable and commendable that the landlord agreed to reimburse all reported costs for damaged belongings. However, in our view, an additional payment is also appropriate. This is to recognise the loss of use of the bedroom from the initial report of the leak in December 2022 until the issue was resolved in February 2025, minus reasonable time for work. We would often also require a landlord to pay an additional amount for distress and inconvenience in cases like this. We have not done so here. This reflects the landlord’s decision to reimburse the full claimed costs for belongings; despite not having evidence of all items before being removed and having limited evidence showing the extent the damage was attributable to its failures.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £2,298.80. This is based on a 20% of rent for 23 months (equating to 100 weeks) at £114.94 per week (based on the Regulator’s average rent). This amount of £2,298.80 is in addition to the £2,111.90 already offered by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

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.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. After receiving the resident’s expressed dissatisfaction on 11 July 2024, the landlord should have logged and investigated it as a complaint under the code. It did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 12 September 2024. This delay was unreasonable and significantly beyond the 5 working days set out in its own guidance and the code, to acknowledge a complaint.
It was positive that once the complaint was accepted, the landlord issued the stage 1 response within required timescales. During the stage 2 investigation, the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension, it then responded by the new promised date.
The landlord provided contradicting details in its responses to the resident. In its stage 1 response, it offered compensation for delays and poor communication. However, at the same time it said it had found no service failure and therefore could not consider compensation for damaged belongings. Then when the resident made a new complaint on 7 January 2025, the landlord said it would not open a new complaint because it was linked to the previous complaint. At the same time, it said the leak reported in this complaint was a separate issue and not a longstanding one. These instances were unreasonably conflicting and confusing.
The landlord did not acknowledge its failings in delaying acceptance of the complaint for nearly 2 months. Had the landlord accepted the complaint within a reasonable time, it could have avoided delay and resolved issues sooner for the resident and her family. To recognise its complaint handling failings, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord fails to acknowledge its complaint handling failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Limited information in the landlord’s records, including missing details of damp and mould inspections and treatments, affected our ability to complete a robust investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. The landlord should strengthen how it records and uses data, which may involve better training, clearer guidance or additional staff support. The spotlight report also provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving their information management practice.

Communication and complaint handling

The landlord should improve its approach to customer service in complaint handling. It should recognise and acknowledge complaints at the earliest opportunity, in line with its policy. It should also ensure staff understand the importance of logging complaints correctly so that issues are addressed promptly and residents receive timely update.