Thrive Homes Limited (202342071)

Decision
Case ID	202342071
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thrive Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	24 April 2026

Background

1. The property was on the second floor, and the roof was directly above. The resident raised multiple complaints through the landlord’s complaints process between June 2023 and July 2024. These related to roof repairs, the standard of communal cleaning, and damage to the communal flooring. She had a young child during this time. She moved from the property in September 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs and reports of damage.
   2. Repairs to the downpipe and communal flooring following a flood.
   3. Concerns about the standard of communal cleaning, fly tipping, and items in communal areas.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs and reports of damage.
   2. Repairs to the downpipe and communal flooring following a flood.
   3. Concerns about the standard of communal cleaning, fly tipping, and items in communal areas.
   4. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord offered proportionate redress for the impact of the delays in resolving issues related to the roof leaking. However, it did not offer proportionate compensation in relation to the delay in completing work to the walkway ceiling outside the property.
5. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising failures in its handling of the repairs to the downpipe and communal flooring. However, its combined offer of compensation was not sufficient to put right the impact on the resident.
6. The landlord appropriately recognised failures to monitor the standard of communal cleaning following our previous determination in November 2022. It demonstrated that it had improved its monitoring and offered suitable compensation to put right previous failures. However, it did not show it consistently acted in line with the agreed action plan.
7. The landlord extended the overall complaint timescale by opening a separate complaint in August 2023 related to communal cleaning, and sending a follow-on response in September 2023, rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process.

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 should have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 May 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £1,250 made up as follows: £400 (£250 previously offered by the landlord and an additional £150) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the walkway ceiling. £150 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble spent in relation to its repairs to the downpipe, and communal flooring following a flood. £650 (£550 previously offered, and an additional £100) toward the inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about the standard of communal cleaning. £50 for the time and trouble spent in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. 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 25 May 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must also provide evidence that it processed the reimbursement of £577.86 for 3 months of cleaning charges, and 40% of the management fees charged between 2018 and 2021 as previously offered.	No later than 25 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 June 2023	The landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident at stage 1. This related to delays in fixing a damaged roof that she said had been leaking for years and was causing damp. It recognised she wanted it to take urgent action as she said this was affecting her health.
3 July 2023	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It addressed concerns related to the roof, communal cleaning, bin chute lighting, and repairs to the communal flooring. It partially upheld the complaint in relation to the roof repairs, as the leak was unresolved. It also upheld her separate concerns about communal cleaning, as it did not have clear monitoring records. It did not uphold concerns about the bin chute lighting or communal flooring. It explained the actions it was due to take moving forward, with expected timeframes.
August 2023	The landlord logged a further complaint about actions it agreed to take following an earlier Housing Ombudsman determination regarding cleaning. It sent a stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It upheld the complaint as it could have communicated and monitored the communal cleaning better following a previous action plan agreed in February 2023. It apologised for the service received and committed to plan a site visit and monitor the standard of cleaning moving forward.
September 2023	The landlord sent a stage 1 follow-on response on 21 September 2023 but has not provided a copy. On 27 September 2023, the resident said she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said: she did not accept its offer of compensation she was unhappy it failed to provide a service she paid for she was disappointed that it would not buy back the property she had battled with it for years which had an impact on her health there had still been no improvement in the block regarding cleaning or fly tipping
20 October 2023	The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It started its action plan in relation to the communal cleaning in September 2023. It was satisfied it was acting in line with this as it had inspected and recalled cleaners twice. It found that it attended within its timescales following each report of fly tipping. It agreed to include waste disposal instructions in its onboarding process for new residents and would write to all residents. It recognised there had been ongoing issues with the communal roof for 4 years. It inspected and said that it would replace an area of the roof. It apologised that this did not happen sooner. It also recognised that scaffolding had been in place since June 2023 without work taking place. It agreed to waive the resident’s share of the costs for the roof work and scaffolding. It confirmed that it did not have a policy to buy-back the resident’s property and would not purchase it from her. It offered a total of £2,837.78. formed of: £550 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving issues related to the cleaning. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by issues with the roof and communication. £577.86 reimbursement for 3 months of cleaning charges, and 40% of the management fees charged between 2018 and 2021. £1.459.92 waived costs to the roof replacement work and scaffolding.
November 2023 to February 2024	The landlord completed work to the roof between November and December 2023. It removed scaffolding in January 2024. In February 2024 it received reports of a leak and flood into the communal areas and stairwell which related to a blocked downpipe.
12 March 2024	The resident raised a separate complaint about the flooring in the communal area which had come up following a recent flood. She said she raised concerns about the quality of work completed the previous year and said it was a slipping hazard. She had a newborn baby and was worried. She also reported an electric bike being stored at the bottom of the stairs which she felt was a fire hazard. She added that no one had repaired the damage to the ceiling outside of her property which was removed to assess the roof work. She wanted it to visit to assess works needed with her. She was also unhappy with its communication.
9 April 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the aspects related to the roof leak and bike storage. It upheld the aspects related to the communal flooring, guttering and downpipe, and the damage to the ceiling outside the resident’s property. It recognised that it did not follow the correct timescales for the downpipe repair, did not log or complete work to the walkway ceiling, and did not previously select an appropriate floor covering solution. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. It committed to replace the anti-slip floor covering and walkway ceiling within 4 weeks. It would also regularly inspect for any further roof leak. It would complete work to a path next to the stairwell by 25 April 2024 and would continue to monitor the communal areas to ensure these were kept clear.
22 April 2024	The resident said she did not accept the findings as there had been no improvement since reporting the problems 2 months prior. The flooring was worse. Due to heavy rain, it had been slippery.
1 July 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated the service failings it found in its previous response. It listed the actions it had taken, including inspecting in May 2024, issuing TORT notices in June 2024, completing work to the anti-slip flooring on 11 June 2024, and completing work to the walkway ceiling. It said the work to the path next to the stairwell was booked for 15 July 2024. It said that the repairs raised had a 20 to 60 working day target and it was satisfied it had completed most of the work. It had also inspected the roof but had not been able to find evidence of a leak. It had a 12-month end of defect inspection in December 2024 and would use this as an opportunity to investigate if it did not find the problem before then. It would also complete an independent inspection. It recognised poor communication, and that this had not improved despite it recognising the same failings in previous complaint responses. It offered £150 compensation. This was to recognise the impact of service failures related to the insufficient anti-slip flooring, poor communication, and not raising a job to the walkway ceiling when first reported.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has explained that she moved from the property in September 2024 and remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of her reports. She is seeking further compensation.

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.

What we have not considered

8. The resident has stated that poor communal cleaning and repair issues impacted the value and sale of her property. We cannot make an assessment of the value of the resident’s property or determine any impact the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) may have had on this. This is a matter more appropriately addressed by the courts, where relevant evidence can be considered and liability assessed.

Complaint	Roof repairs and reports of damage.
Finding	Service failure

9. The resident raised concerns about roof‑related issues spanning several years. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to complaints made in 2023 and 2024. Events before June 2022 fall outside the scope of this investigation, as they occurred more than 12 months before the complaint.
10. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the building, and common parts. Its published repairs standards state that it should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. It should complete routine repairs within 20 working days, and more complex works, within 60 working days. The landlord provided some repair and communication records, but these were incomplete, lacked dates, and did not confirm what work was completed. The poor records impacted a full investigation of the complaint.
11. The landlord’s records confirm reports of roof leaks from at least 2019, with repeated reports between 2020 and 2022. The landlord completed repairs to the roof slates in September 2022, but the resident reported further leaks from the walkway ceiling outside her front door in March 2023. Contact records indicate delays while the landlord waited for reports and quotes prior to the complaint in June 2023.
12. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise that previous repairs had not resolved the problems long term. Following its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2023, the landlord took approximately 4 months to investigate and begin the work to the roof. This timescale is reasonable given that it initially intended to undertake a section 20 consultation, before deciding to waive costs in October 2023. It was resolution focused for the landlord to waive the resident’s contribution toward the cost of the work, and scaffolding placement given previous failures to resolve the situation.
13. The resident referred to internal damage caused by the leaks. Under the lease, internal repairs were the resident’s responsibility. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to her contents insurance for internal damage to items or decorations. However, it should have sought further information or inspected to establish whether any structural damage warranted a buildings insurance claim. There are no reports of specific internal damage, and not enough evidence to support that this significantly impacted the resident, who did not pursue this further.
14. It is unclear when the ceiling and wall to the external walkway area outside the resident’s property was damaged. The landlord’s records show that it was on notice of possible damage to the area in August 2022 and March 2023. The damage during an inspection was likely between March and June 2023, prior to the roof works.It was reasonable that the landlord could not complete the repair prior to the roof work due to the ongoing leaks. However, there is no evidence it had acted on this within its 20 or 60 working day timeframes.
15. The landlord has accepted that it did not raise or correctly track this work. It committed to completing the repair within 4 weeks (by 7 May 2024), dependent on the weather. It said it completed this by 1 July 2024 but has not provided a completion date, or evidence it completed this within the promised timeframe which was a failing. The landlord has provided evidence that it attempted to investigate her concerns about further leaks that were not impacting her property. It had not been able to find evidence to progress this. It acted reasonably by committing to investigating further.
16. Our compensation guidance states that offers over £1,000 can be proportionate in instances of severe maladministration, where there has been a severe long-term impact on a resident. The landlord’s waiver of costs, and £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience was proportionate to put right the initial complaint. However, its overall offer of £150 toward its failure to raise work to the walkway ceiling was disproportionately low given that this was also offered for its handling of repairs to the floor coverings and communication. The resident was directly impacted as this was outside her property. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation set out above for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing this work.

Complaint	Repairs to the downpipe, and communal flooring following a flood.
Finding	Service failure

17. Following reports of a leak and flood affecting the communal stairwell and areas on 13 February 2024, the landlord initially acted reasonably by attending within its emergency timescales. The contractor could not clear the blockage, and it raised a further repair to be completed within its 20-working day timescale. It completed work to clear the blockage and test the rainwater system which caused damage to the floor on 28 February 2024, 11 working days after the initial report. It has acted reasonably by recognising that due to the risk caused by the flooding, it should not have used its routine repair timescales.
18. The resident had initially reported concerns about the condition of the communal flooring in May 2023 as areas of the non-slip flooring had come up. The landlord completed an inspection in June and asked contractors to quote on 28 June 2023. It completed work in July/August 2023. This was reasonably within its 60 working day major works timeframe.
19. The resident raised concerns about the materials used in August 2023 and the landlord confirmed that this was recommended due to its durability, but it was aware this would need to be reapplied due to wear and tear over time. It was reasonable for it to act in line with contractor recommendations when determining what material to use, and it is not our role to decide on the type of materials used.
20. Following the flood due to the downpipe blockage on 13 February 2024, operatives reported that the anti-slip paint had come up in areas. The landlord’s records show that it initially assessed this and did not believe there was an immediate risk. It was reasonable for it to assess the flooring once the blockage had been cleared, and its records show that it had taken steps to place wet floor signs to inform residents in the meantime.
21. Following the resident’s complaint on 12 March 2024, the landlord acted reasonably by attending to remove the loose floor debris she had reported on 14 March 2024, within a reasonable time. It was reasonable for it to ask the initial flooring manufacturer to assess the flooring on 26 March 2024 before deciding what action to take.
22. The landlord has not disputed that the system used may not have been suitable due to the level of moisture it was exposed to during the flood in February 2024. Its records show that there was approximately 20cm of water in areas which was excessive, and more than what the floor covering would usually be exposed to. In its stage 1 complaint response on 9 April 2024, it confirmed that it would be reapplying a different floor covering based on the floor manufacturer’s recommendations and committed to do this with 4 weeks dependent on the weather.
23. It reported completing this on 11 June 2024, approximately 9 weeks later. This was within its 60-day major repair timescale for major work. However, the landlord did not act in line with the agreed actions, and there is no evidence to show it kept the resident adequately updated on the progress. This would have been appropriate given the ongoing complaint.
24. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation is within a range that can be said to put right the impact of its communication failures on the resident. However, as this amount was also offered toward the delays in completing work to the walkway ceiling, it was insufficient to put right this aspect of the complaint. We have included this within our overall order related to compensation above.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning, fly-tipping, and items left in communal areas.
Finding	Service failure

25. The resident raised concerns about the standard of cleaning and maintenance, including fly tipping, and the related service charge. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge. While we can consider compensation for any distress and inconvenience, we cannot determine whether she is liable for the service charge, as this is best suited to be considered by the court or tribunal.
26. In line with the leasehold agreement, the landlord was responsible for the cleaning of communal areas. Its neighbourhood management policy states it should inspect properties with communal areas at least 4 times a year. It would complete more frequent inspections where it identified serious persistent issues. When the resident reported concerns, the landlord was required to investigate and monitor whether the cleaning service was delivered to a reasonable standard.

Communal cleaning

27. We issued a determination in November 2022 concerning the landlord’s monitoring of communal cleaning. We found failings at the time due to a lack of records to confirm how the landlord monitored cleaning standards. We included an order for it to confirm how it would monitor and ensure cleaning standards were being met which it complied with. Despite this, following the resident’s further complaints in June and August 2023, the landlord has not disputed that it did not hold records to confirm it had monitored the cleaning. It has also recognised that the issue with the cleaning had been ongoing for a long time and it should have communicated better regarding the action plan it agreed to.
28. The landlord has not provided a copy of its follow‑on response to the resident dated 21 September 2023. However, later correspondence confirms that it offered £550 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and £577.86 in reimbursement for 3 months of cleaning charges and 40% of management fees paid between 2018 and 2021. While it is unclear how these amounts were calculated, the offer was resolution focused and intended to put right previous service failures.
29. The landlord also committed to completing fortnightly inspections following each clean, monthly meetings to review inspection records, and provide the resident with updates. Evidence shows that from 30 August 2023 it began completing regular inspections, with photos, at least monthly, and sometimes more frequently, such as 3 times in November 2023. Records demonstrate that it logged concerns, raised issues with the cleaning contractor, and arranged recalls and re‑inspections where standards were not met, showing improved monitoring and learning from the complaint. It has also shown that it provided regular updates to the resident.
30. While there were improvements in its monitoring, we have not seen evidence to show that it consistently completed fortnightly inspections following each cleaning. It is unclear for how long it committed to fortnightly inspections, and it may have been reasonable to review the frequency of its visits if the situation had improved. We have not seen that this had a significant impact, as it has demonstrated that it continued to monitor and recall its cleaning contractors where the cleaning fell below standard into December 2024, after the resident had moved from the property. However, it has not shown evidence that it consistently completed actions as agreed or told the resident if it would be reducing the frequency of visits, which was a failing.

Fly tipping 

31. The landlord’s policies do not clearly set out its timeframes for removing fly-tipped waste. However, its antisocial behaviour and repair policies indicate that this should be within 15 to 20 working days. The landlord has provided limited evidence showing reports of fly-tipping prior to the complaint in June 2023. However, the resident reported fly tipping on 26 July 2023, and the landlord confirmed this would be collected by 9 August 2023, within expected timescales.
32. Following this, there is no clear evidence showing what dates items were removed. However, the landlord’s monthly, and sometimes more frequent, inspection reports from August 2023 onward show that there was different fly-tipped waste on each visit. This indicates that it was attending to remove identified items primarily within a 20-working day timeframe. It acted reasonably within its complaint responses by recognising that there was a problem with fly-tipping at the block and confirming it would communicate responsibilities with new and existing residents.

Items left in communal areas

33. In line with the Tort (interference with goods) Act 1977, the landlord has a legal obligation to notify residents of its intention to remove items from a communal area in the first instance, unless there was an immediate health and safety risk. The resident reported needing to “climb over” items left in communal hallways on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s records show that it visited on 15 November 2023 and then communicated with her on 17 November 2023 to confirm there were items but an otherwise clear walkway. It also said it would check to see if it had issues Tort notices previously. This demonstrates it acted in line with obligations related to fire safety and access within a reasonable timeframe.
34. We have not seen any further reports related to items in the communal areas until 12 March 2024 when the resident raised concerns related to an electric bike in the communal area. The landlord’s records indicate that it had previously issued a Tort Notice and spoke to the bike owner, showing it had monitored this prior to the resident’s complaint. It acted reasonably by issuing another Tort notice on 13 March 2024 notifying the relevant resident of the need to move this. It has shown that it continued to monitor items in the communal areas throughout the work to resolve the flood and repairs to the communal flooring between March and July 2024. We have not found evidence of a service failure.
35. The landlord took reasonable steps to learn from the complaint and has shown that it improved its monitoring and record keeping related to the cleanliness of the communal areas. Its offer of £550 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to monitor this following our previous determination in November 2022 was proportionate to put right the initial failings in line with our compensation guidance.
36. We have not found failing in how it manages reports related to fly-tipping or items in the communal areas. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it consistently acted in line with the action plan to inspect the cleaning fortnightly which was a failure to act on what it committed to. We have found service failure on this basis and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaints
Finding	Service failure

37. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
38. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint on 8 June 2023 but has not provided a copy. It provided its stage 1 response on 3 July 2023, 17 working days later. While this was outside of its policy timescales, it informed her of the extension which did not exceed a further 10 working days, in line with the Code.
39. On 9 August 2023, the landlord logged a further complaint about actions following our previous determination in relation to cleaning. It responded within 9 working days, in line with the Code. However, as communal cleaning formed part of the initial complaint, it may have missed an opportunity to address related service failures sooner. By opening a second complaint, the landlord extended the overall timeframe of the complaints process.
40. The landlord’s records refer to a stage 1 “follow-on” response on 21 September 2023. It has not provided a copy. The Code states that unresolved complaints should progress to the next stage, which would be stage 2. While the landlord was seeking to put matters right, this approach was likely to have extended the overall complaint timeframe.
41. The resident escalated the complaint, and the landlord took 17 working days to respond between 27 September and 20 October 2023. This was in line with the Code. This appears to have been a combined stage 2 response covering cleaning, roof repairs, and other issues. The landlord should clearly inform residents when it intends to combine complaint responses, so it is clear when the complaints process has concluded.
42. The landlord took 19 working days to respond to the resident’s second complaint at stage 1 between 12 March and 9 April 2024. This was outside of its policy timescales, but it informed her of the extension, which remained within the timescales in the Code.
43. The resident set out her reasons for dissatisfaction on 22 April 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 2 May 2024, 8 working days later. The delay may have been reasonable given that the 4-week deadline for agreed actions had not passed, although the landlord did not explain this. It took 37 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 2 on 1 July 2024. Its communication indicates that it informed the resident of the need to extend the complaint. This did not exceed a further 20 working days in line with the Code.
44. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This relates to the extended timeframes of the initial complaints. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling service failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. The landlord did not provide clear repair or communication records detailing dates of communication, completion dates for repairs, or details of the work it completed. It did not provide all relevant complaint responses. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to form an audit trail so that it can conclude an action took place. It can take learning from this to ensure that it is able to provide comprehensive information when asked.

Communication

46. The landlord has recognised communication failings, and that it did not improve this despite recognising this as a service failure in previous complaint responses. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.