Midland Heart Limited (202523607)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202523607 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Midland Heart Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
13 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat with his partner and children. He raised concerns with the landlord about the condition of the property. He reported several issues, including outstanding repairs, damp and mould, and a pest infestation.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
- Repairs, damp and mould.
- A pest infestation.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of reports of repairs, damp and mould.
- We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of reports of a pest infestation.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Repairs, damp and mould
- After the landlord issued its final response, delays continued and communication remained poor, showing it had not learned from its earlier failings.
A pest infestation
- The landlord did not properly investigate the root cause or carry out the repairs needed to address the likely entry points.
Complaint handling
- The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.
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:
|
No later than 11 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 11 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Permanent move update order The landlord must provide the resident with a written update on the progress of his move to permanent accommodation and confirm how frequently further updates will be provided. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of this to us. |
No later than 11 May 2026 |
|
4 |
Pest 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. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.
What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
The survey report must set out:
Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must share a copy of the report with both the resident and us. |
No later than 11 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 May 2025 |
The resident made a formal complaint, stating that the landlord was not taking the property’s disrepair seriously. |
|
28 May 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the resident had been raising concerns about the condition of his bathroom and kitchen since September 2024. It said it had carried out repairs, but these did not resolve the issues permanently. It also accepted that the resident raised further concerns in January 2025, but it could not find any record that action was taken. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 23 May 2025 and said it would start a programme of works to address the problem.
It also explained that it would look to move the resident permanently. In addition, it said it would extend pest treatment to the flat above to address all entry points. The landlord apologised for poor communication, failing to attend appointments, and delays in dealing with the damp and mould. It offered £350 compensation: £100 for failing to arrange a survey, £100 for poor communication, and £150 for inconvenience. |
|
8 June 2025 |
The resident escalated the complaint. He said he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, as he felt it did not reflect the money he had spent on pest treatment and maintaining the property. He also said the offer did not recognise the trauma the situation had caused his family. In addition, he explained that he had not heard about a move. |
|
18 July 2025 |
The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It listed the repairs needed and explained that these works would also aim to resolve the damp and mould. It said the repairs would begin on 6 August 2025. Regarding the pest issue, the landlord explained that its contractor had confirmed that baiting was only required in the passageway outside the property. It said it checked with the resident in June 2025, and he confirmed that he had not experienced any further pest problems. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £700 to reflect ongoing delays and continued poor communication. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident said that pests were still present in the property and explained that the kitchen wall was very porous, which allowed mice to enter. He wanted the landlord to move him and increase the compensation offer. |
|
12 February 2026 |
The landlord reviewed the complaint and said that the work needed in the resident’s home was now complete. It acknowledged that there were shortcomings in its internal communication between September and December 2025, which caused delays to the contractor’s work. It offered a further £100 in compensation to recognise this. |
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 |
Repairs, damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- In this case, communication was poor. The landlord missed appointments, failed to follow up on works, and delayed addressing the damp and mould or arranging a survey of the property. These failings caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. He felt the landlord was not taking the issue seriously and was worried about the impact on his family, especially as the home was overcrowded and the landlord planned to sell it due to its energy inefficiency and disrepair.
- The evidence shows that after the resident first reported bathroom repairs in September 2024, the landlord attended within its policy timescales and filled hairline cracks in the bathroom wall. However, it did not follow up on other outstanding repairs, which led the resident to request a new bathroom due to its condition.
- The landlord inspected the bathroom again in January 2025 and found that the tiles were falling off and that the wall behind them was saturated. However, there is no evidence that it took any action. This likely contributed to the later report of damp and mould. In its final response, the landlord said that completing the outstanding repairs should resolve the damp and mould.
- When the landlord visited the property on 14 April 2025 to address a mice issue, it noted that the walls, units and external brickwork were in ‘bad condition’. It was only at this point that it recommended a full survey of the property. This was a significant failing.
- The landlord did not complete this survey until the end of May 2025 where it identified the need for several works, including bathroom repairs, plastering and external repairs. It is reasonable to conclude that these issues could have been identified earlier. Doing so would likely have prevented delays in completing the necessary works.
- Although the landlord carried out some mould treatment, there were further delays in completing the works and communication remained poor after its formal complaint responses, which made the delays worse. In total, it took the landlord more than 16 months to complete the required works, which was considerably outside its policy timescales.
- The landlord acknowledged most of its failings and offered £800 in compensation. This aligns with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £600 where failings have had a significant impact on the resident. It also offered to temporarily move the resident while these works were completed. Although the resident declined, this was a reasonable offer, as the landlord recognised that the property’s condition was unsuitable for his family.
- However, delays and poor communication continued after the landlord’s final response in July 2025, showing that it had not learned from its earlier failings. This is why we have made an adverse finding, and the landlord should pay close attention to the learning points set out below.
- The evidence showed that the landlord was actively exploring moving the resident to alternative permanent accommodation. However, the current status of this is unclear, and the landlord must update the resident. This is important because it had already identified the property for disposal and had marked rehousing as a priority for the resident and his family as early as May 2025.
|
Complaint |
A pest infestation |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- In December 2024, the resident told the landlord that he had been dealing with a mouse problem in his property since 2016. He explained that he had arranged pest control himself, but this had not resolved the issue because the mice were entering through the walls and spreading through every flat in the block. The landlord’s notes stated that the problem would need a thorough inspection.
- In January 2025 the landlord inspected the kitchen. It found visible signs of mice behind a base unit that had come away. It carried out some works, including filling holes and refitting the back board, but also found a separate hole in the kitchen wall. Its records stated that it needed to assess how to deal with this, as it was a ‘hole used by vermin’.
- However, there is no evidence that this assessment took place. This was contrary to its policy, which says it will work with residents to address the root cause of pests. The lack of action caused inconvenience to the resident, who raised the issue again in March 2025
- Although the landlord’s contractor attended and carried out treatments during the complaint period, there is no evidence that the landlord took a holistic approach to identify the root cause. This was despite the resident repeatedly telling the landlord that the problem kept returning. Instead, the landlord focused on treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause.
- The landlord’s damp and mould inspection in May 2025 also identified vermin as a problem. It recommended that the landlord refer the issue to pest control or the council to inspect the shared access area. It further advised sealing any entry points in the kitchen walls and floors, as well as any other possible access routes in the property, and even suggested replacing the kitchen. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any further inspections or completed the recommended works.
- In its final response, the landlord said that after contacting the resident in June 2025, he reported that he had not experienced any pest issues for 4 weeks, and it therefore closed the case. This was inappropriate and showed once again that the landlord failed to assess or address the root cause of the problem. This caused further distress to the resident, as it placed the responsibility on him to report any further pest issues, even though the landlord knew there were outstanding works needed.
- The landlord’s records show that the resident reported further infestation problems in 2026 and that the landlord was due to visit him in March 2026. However, it is unclear whether this inspection took place. The resident told us he believes the infestation originates from a neighbouring property and is entering his home through a wall cavity and into the kitchen. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection.
- The landlord’s failure to properly investigate the issue and carry out the repairs needed to resolve it has caused the resident distress and inconvenience. He told us he has spent money on bait for many years and that his children are frightened to use the toilet because it is located near the kitchen. Our compensation order reflects the detriment caused and is consistent with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £100 where failures have adversely affected a resident.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord has a 2‑stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It also says that residents should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Although the landlord’s acknowledgement was slightly delayed, it issued the stage 1 response within the timescales set out in both its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord took 29 working days to issue its stage 2 response. Although this was outside its policy timescales, it told the resident on 11 July 2025 that it needed more time. It explained the reason for the delay and set out when the resident could expect a response. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
Learning
- The landlord should follow up on reported repairs until they are fully completed.
- The landlord should investigate the root cause of issues rather than only treating the symptoms and adopt a holistic approach when dealing with recurring issues.
- The landlord should ensure that learning from complaints is applied to prevent similar failings from recurring.
- The landlord should keep residents updated on rehousing progress where this has been identified as a priority.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- There were some minor gaps but, overall, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.
Communication
- The landlord acknowledged that its communication fell short. It should keep clear and timely communication with residents throughout.