Together Housing Association Limited (202449429)

Decision
Case ID	202449429
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Together Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of his property. He said it had failed to resolve damp and other repair issues that he had reported multiple times. He suggested that it had taken too long to repair his heating. He also complained that it had disclosed his personal information to a third party without his permission.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Investigation of damp and property condition concerns.
2. Handling of heating repairs.
3. Response to concerns about a potential data breach.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s investigation of damp and property condition concerns.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of heating repairs.
2. Response to concerns about a potential data breach.
3. Handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Investigation of damp and property condition concerns

The landlord failed to rearrange a repairs inspection cancelled by the resident. By the time it issued its final complaint response 6 weeks later, it had still not rearranged the inspection. This delay was not in keeping with its repairs policy.

Handling of heating repairs

The landlord fully repaired the heating in line with its repairs policy timeframes.

Response to concerns about a potential data breach

The landlord thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns and clearly explained to him the reasons for its findings.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its complaints policy.

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 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its investigation of damp and property condition concerns. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. It must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If it cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect by the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must carry out out a full repairs inspection and produce a written report with photographs. The report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp in the bathroom and any other repair issues identified during the inspection. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any identified issues together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any identified issues (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary due to the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 28 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: His property was unsafe as the landlord had failed to respond to multiple reports he had made about damp and other repair issues. An individual told him they had obtained personal information about him from the landlord. He was concerned this was a data breach. He wanted the landlord to compensate him for distress, inconvenience and damage to health due to all these issues. He also wanted it to compensate him for some repair work he had carried out.
29 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said it aimed to respond within 10 working days. Before this deadline had passed, it told him it was extending the deadline by a further 10 working days.
21 November 2024	The resident contacted the landlord and reported: None of the radiators in his property were working. There was damp and mould in his bathroom. The bathroom extractor fan was not working. A kitchen window handle was not fully closing. He said he was only available for appointments mid-week after 6pm or anytime on Saturdays due to his work commitments.
23 November 2024	The landlord repaired the kitchen window handle.
26 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: In the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, it had carried out fire safety works and gas works. Its records indicated there were no other repair issues reported by the resident during this period. It would carry out a full repairs inspection given the resident’s property condition concerns. It would contact him to arrange a date. In line with his tenancy agreement, it had previously given his contact information to contractors. If he had other reasons for data protection concerns, he should let it know so it could investigate further. It had not identified service failures so would not pay compensation.
29 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He complained about the length of time the landlord was taking to resolve the various repairs, including heating. He said he had spent money buying heaters due to this and asked it to compensate him for these. He sent it copies of correspondence from a company that dealt with disrepair claims and suggested the landlord had given the company his personal information. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request that day.
4 December 2024	The landlord attended the property. It repaired the heating and applied a damp and mould treatment. Its operative identified damp in a bathroom cupboard which he suspected may have been caused by a small leak from the flat above. He advised the landlord to investigate this further.
24 December 2024	The landlord told the resident it was extending its stage 2 response deadline by 20 working days as it needed more time to investigate.
13 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: The resident reported his radiators were not working on 21 November 2024. It had not received any earlier reports from him of this issue. It was unable to treat this as an emergency repair and attend within 24 hours due to the resident’s availability. He told it he had temporary heaters. It was therefore content to prioritise the repair as non-urgent and attend to it 13 working days later at the resident’s convenience. It had planned to complete a repairs inspection and investigate the damp in the bathroom cupboard in December 2024. The appointment did not go ahead due to the resident’s availability. It did not usually carry out inspections in the evenings or at weekends, but its repairs inspector had agreed to arrange a Saturday appointment. It would identify any repair issues during the inspection and then agree dates for follow-on works with the resident. It asked him to let it know which Saturday suited him. It had not shared any information with the disrepair company. He should contact the company directly to ask how it got his information. It had not identified service failures so would not pay compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said the landlord took too long to repair his heating, had not resolved all repairs in the property and did not address his data protection concerns. He wanted compensation for distress, inconvenience, damage to health and financial loss.

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	Investigation of damp and property condition concerns
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of his damp and property condition concerns has had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident 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 not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience for any failures we identify.

What we looked at

The resident complained about the condition of his property. He said the landlord had failed to address multiple reports he had made about damp and other repair issues. He suggested it was “deteriorating” and in an “unsafe condition”.
The landlord checked its repair records during its stage 1 investigation for any reports from the resident in the 12 months prior to his complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy which did not require it to investigate issues arising more than 12 months previously. It found it had received no reports from him in the previous year about damp or other repair issues.
We similarly limited our review of the landlord’s repair records to the 12 months prior to the complaint (October 2023 to October 2024). The records do not show the resident reported any concerns about damp or the condition of his property during this time.
The landlord advised the resident of its findings in its stage 1 response. He did not provide any evidence in his escalation request to challenge this. For example, he did not provide the landlord with any dates of previous reports or other information that would have enabled it to probe its records further. Given this, we are satisfied that there were no failings by the landlord in the 12 months prior to the complaint.
The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it would not compensate the resident for any repair work he had completed. We understand the work involved tiling in the bathroom. The resident had not previously reported repair concerns about the tiling to the landlord. It had therefore not had the opportunity to assess whether it was responsible under the tenancy agreement for the work and to then, if applicable, complete it. Its decision to not compensate the resident for the work was therefore fair.
Once the landlord received the resident’s complaint, it was put on notice that he was concerned about damp and other repair issues in the property. It was unclear from the complaint what his specific repair concerns related to and how extensive the damp was. The landlord should therefore have contacted him promptly upon receiving his complaint to clarify this. It should then have prioritised its response in line with its repairs policy. The policy required it to attend to any emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It failed to do so.
Instead, the landlord simply acknowledged the complaint. We have seen no evidence that it made any attempt to clarify during its stage 1 investigation what the resident’s specific concerns were. It was not until 29 working days later, in its stage 1 response, that it suggested it would carry out a full repairs inspection of the property. This meant it had not attended to the resident’s reports of damp or unspecified property condition concerns within its policy timeframes. Had it done so, it may have been in a position to provide a more detailed stage 1 response which was based on its inspection findings.
There was a subsequent unreasonable delay by the landlord in arranging the full repairs inspection. It made the commitment to arrange the inspection in its stage 1 response on 26 November 2024. It contacted the resident shortly after this and said it would carry out the inspection on 10 December 2024. However, on 30 November 2024 the resident phoned the landlord and cancelled the appointment as the proposed time did not suit him. He explained he was only available in the evening after 6pm or on a Saturday.
The landlord later suggested that it told him during this phone call, which was on a Saturday, to ring back the following Monday and reschedule the cancelled appointment. The resident disagrees that it told him this. We have listened to an audio recording of the phone call which verifies the resident’s account. The landlord made no attempt during this call or shortly after it to rebook the inspection. Had it done so, it could reasonably have explained to the resident that it did not carry out repair inspections during the times he had suggested. It could then have attempted to agree a date that would work for both parties. However, there is no evidence it had this discussion with him.
It was not until the landlord issued its stage 2 response over 6 weeks later that it asked the resident to contact it and rearrange the appointment for the repairs inspection. It agreed that the appointment could be on a Saturday. We acknowledge it did not have to accommodate a Saturday inspection, so its agreement to this showed it was trying to find a resolution. However, that it took so long to attempt to rearrange the appointment was not in keeping with its repairs policy timeframes.
The landlord’s delay in rearranging the repairs inspection also meant it delayed in:
1. Repairing the bathroom extractor fan.
2. Investigating the source of damp in a bathroom cupboard.
This is because it intended to attend to both these issues when carrying out the repairs inspection. It became aware the fan was not working when the resident reported the issue on 21 November 2024. It became aware it needed to investigate the source of damp in the cupboard on 4 December 2024 as a follow-on from its mould treatment that day. In line with its repairs policy, it should have attended to both issues within 28 days. However, it had not attended to either issue by the time of its stage 2 response on 13 January 2025. This was a further failure to comply with its repairs policy.
In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its 3 month delay between October 2024 and January 2025 in arranging to inspect his property, investigate the damp and repair the extractor fan.
We understand that since issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord has not carried out a full repairs inspection of the property. It told us this was because the resident did not contact it to arrange the inspection and has not reported any further concerns. We understand from speaking with the resident that the landlord has recently been back in contact with him to arrange a damp and mould inspection. However, he told us he still has wider concerns about the condition of his property and that the extractor fan is still not working. Given this, we have ordered the landlord to carry out a repairs inspection.

Complaint	Handling of heating repairs
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will treat repairs posing an immediate risk to health and safety, or which may cause significant property damage, as an emergency.
When the resident reported his radiators were not working on 21 November 2024, the landlord intended to schedule a repair appointment immediately. However, the resident was unavailable to facilitate an appointment within the landlord’s usual working hours. He told it he had temporary heaters. The landlord therefore classified the repair as a routine repair requiring a 28 day resolution. This was reasonable given there were no immediate health and safety risks and the resident had access to an alternative heating source.
The landlord suggested to the resident that to minimise disruption, it could repair the heating on the same day it attended his property to treat mould. The resident agreed to this. During the appointment, which took place 13 working days after the resident’s initial report, the landlord completed the repair. The resident confirmed he was satisfied the radiators were fully working again. The landlord therefore resolved the matter in under half the time permitted by its repairs policy for completing routine repairs.
The resident asked the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of buying temporary heaters. The landlord understood he was already in possession of the heaters when he first reported the radiators were not working on 21 November 2024. Had he told it in advance that he intended to buy heaters, it could have discussed options with him. For example, it may have been able to provide the heaters. Alternatively, it may have decided that because he did not have heaters it would arrange an out of hours repairs appointment. As it did not have advance notice of his intention to buy heaters and there was no failure in its handling of the repair, it was not obliged to reimburse him.

Complaint	Response to concerns about a potential data breach
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not looked at

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) enforces the UK’s data protection legislation and is responsible for investigating potential data breaches. We have therefore not assessed whether a data breach occurred in this case as it would be more appropriate for the ICO make such a determination. We have limited our investigation of this issue to how the landlord communicated with the resident about his concerns.

What we looked at

The landlord understood from the resident’s initial complaint that he had been contacted by a contractor who was arranging an inspection of his property. The landlord is permitted to share personal information, such as a resident’s contact details, with its contractors provided it is for a legitimate purpose. This is outlined in more detail in its privacy policy, available on its website, and forms part of the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement. All of its contractors must comply with data protection legislation and must sign a data sharing agreement as part of their terms of appointment.
The landlord explained this to the resident in its stage 1 response. It apologised if contact from a contractor had caused him concern. It reasonably suggested that if this was not the cause of his concern, he should let it know.
The resident subsequently clarified within his escalation request that his concern related to contact he had received from a disrepair company. He sent the landlord screenshots of 3 emails and 2 text messages from the company. He said these showed the landlord had unlawfully disclosed his personal information.
The landlord reviewed the screenshots during its stage 2 investigation. It could see no evidence within these to verify the resident’s suggestion that it had disclosed his personal information. We have also reviewed the screenshots which show the disrepair company responding to information it had received from the resident. The screenshots contain no indication from the company that it had received any information from the landlord.
The landlord told the resident during its stage 2 investigation that the evidence he had provided did not show it had disclosed his personal data to the disrepair company. It gave him an opportunity to provide further evidence before it completed its investigation and issued its stage 2 response. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment by the landlord to consider all available evidence. However, the resident did not provide any additional information.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had not shared any information about the resident with the disrepair company. It suggested he contact the company directly to establish how it had obtained his information. We are satisfied this was a reasonable and evidence-based response to his complaint.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy also includes provision for extending these deadlines.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request within a day of receipt. It took more than 10 working days at stage 1 and more than 20 working days at stage 2 to issue its responses. However, at both stages it told the resident in advance of the original deadline that it required more time to investigate. It gave itself an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 to respond. This was in keeping with the extension provisions of its complaints policy and it issued its responses within the revised deadlines.

Learning

Complaints about repairs

If the landlord is notified of repair issues within a complaint, it should attend to the repairs in line with its repairs policy. Alongside this, it should investigate and respond to the complaint in line with its complaints policy. Unless it has good reason to, it should not hold off on resolving a repair because it is investigating a complaint, and vice versa. This is particularly important now that Awaab’s Law is in force and it is legally required to comply with set timeframes in certain types of repair cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping. It demonstrated transparency by attaching a repairs history report to its stage 2 response.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, particularly when arranging appointments. If a resident has limited availability for appointments, the landlord should proactively attempt to find a solution agreeable to both parties. It should not delay in rescheduling cancelled appointments.