Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202537358)

Decision
Case ID	202537358
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	25 June 2026

Background

1. The resident lives on the sixth floor of her building. She has informed the landlord about vulnerabilities related to her mobility. On 12 March 2025, she complained that the lift was out of order and explained the impact this had on her. She also reported issues with her bathroom sink.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a communal lift.
   2. Repairs to a bathroom sink basin.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to a communal lift.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to a bathroom sink basin.
   3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the lift

4. The landlord responded to reports of lift faults on the same day they were reported. However, it did not provide detailed evidence of its response times or maintain accurate records of when it fixed the lift. There is no evidence it considered the impact on the resident or offered support, despite her vulnerabilities.

Repairs to the sink

5. The landlord did not meet its own repair timeframes. It recognised this in its complaint responses and offered a proportionate amount of compensation.

The complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales. However, it did not acknowledge or respond to the stage 2 complaint within its timescales. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

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 23 July 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to a communal lift. 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 23 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Compensation The landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. We found reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord pays this sum to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: the communal lift was not working a sink in the bathroom was blocked she had mobility issues and wanted to be moved to a more suitable property of the impact of the broken lift
20 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it: had arranged to investigate the heating and plumbing issues agreed the lift had been broken for too long, but said it should be working in the next 3 working days could not consider a rehousing request, as that would need to be referred to the local council
2 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She remained unhappy because: she believed the property was unsuitable for her needs the lift had been broken for 2 months and the impact this was having on her the bathroom sink was still blocked
20 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: recognised the lift had broken down frequently, but it believed it reacted appropriately when this had happened was going to recommend internally a review of the lift to see if any proactive work was required recognised that there had been issues in its response to the reports of the bathroom sink could not help in rehousing her and that she should contact the local council recognised that there were delays related to the landlord’s complaint handling offered £400 compensation, £250 for the delays related to the bathroom sink and £150 for its complaint handling delays
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy at the landlord’s response. She raised the issues with the lift and the sink to us.

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 to a communal lift
Finding	Maladministration

7. The lift experienced faults between 8 January 2025 to 4 April 2025. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to a lift fault in 4 hours. The landlord’s records show it attended each reported fault on the same day. However, it has not provided records of its response times. While responding on the day is a reasonable approach in the circumstances, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for us to confirm whether it followed its policy.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that where a repair cannot be completed on the first visit, it will keep the resident informed of progress and expected completion. The faults reported in January 2025 were resolved on the same day. A further fault was identified on 17 February 2025, and the lift was taken out of service on 20 February 2025. While the lift was out of order, the landlord communicated with the resident about the delay. It provided updates, including reasons for the ongoing issues. This was in line with its policy.
9. The landlord’s position in its stage 2 response and to us was that the lift was fixed on 18 March 2025. However, its own communication records with the resident indicate the lift remained out of service until 4 April 2025. This inconsistency represents gaps in the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping. It meant the landlord could not accurately assess the duration of the outage or its impact on the resident.
10. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the lift outage on the resident or took steps to provide support during this period. The landlord was aware the resident has mobility issues. However, there is no evidence it contacted her to assess her needs or consider appropriate support. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so, even if it believed the delay was shorter.
11. The landlord stated the lift was out of service for 18 working days and did not uphold the complaint. However, the evidence indicates the lift was unavailable for 31 working days. This was a significant discrepancy, which arose from in effective record keeping and affected the landlord’s ability to assess the extent of the failure.
12. The landlord also did not consider the impact of the outage on the resident, despite being aware of her mobility issues. It did not identify or offer any support during a prolonged period without lift access.
13. We also recognise that the distress caused by maladministration is unique to each resident. Not all residents will experience the same impact, which may be due to their circumstances or vulnerabilities (aggravating factors). Where such factors exist, we may consider these to justify an increased compensation award.
14. Taken together, the inaccurate records, the failure to recognise the duration of the outage, and the lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities amount to maladministration.
15. We order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged this.

Complaint	Sink basin repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The resident reported a repair for the bathroom sink in an email on 12 March 2025. The landlord recorded the repair on 20 March 2025. This discrepancy indicates a further record keeping failure.
17. The landlord’s records do not clearly show when it first inspected the sink. It recorded removing the sink pedestal on either 17 April 2025 or 22 April 2025. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to non–emergency repairs within 10 working days. Considering either date, the landlord did not meet this timescale.
18. The landlord fixed the sink on 9 May 2025. It acknowledged that the delay and its communications around the delay were inappropriate. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £250 compensation. The offer of compensation is in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected a resident.
19. While the delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord’s offer was proportionate in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint, or complaint escalation, in 2 working days. It says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint in 10 working days and a stage 2 escalation in 20 working days.
21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. As the landlord’s policy set a shorter timescale at the time, we have assessed its actions against its November 2024 complaints policy.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint the same day it received it, 12 March 2025. It issued its stage 1 response in 6 working days. This was within its stated timescales.
23. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 5 working days late. It issued its stage 2 response 27 working days late. The stage 2 response also contained inaccurate information, stating the incorrect date for the completion of the lift repair.
24. The landlord recognised the delays in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised to the resident. It offered the resident £150 compensation. The compensation offered by the landlord is in line with its own compensation policy for when a resident has experienced a moderate level of inconvenience or annoyance. This offer was proportionate to the impact on the resident and in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged its error and looked to put things right.

Learning

25. This case highlights the importance of good record keeping. If the landlord had maintained accurate and complete records, it would have been better able to identify and respond to the issues. Poor records can lead to delays, inappropriate action, or missed opportunities to resolve problems. This determination demonstrates this.
26. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or appropriate support. A risk assessment would have helped it to identify whether additional support, or temporary accommodation, was appropriate. Where delays continued, the landlord should have kept the situation under review and adjusted its support as required.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. In several instances, it was unable to evidence key actions. It also held conflicting records in relation to the lift repair and the bathroom sink. This limited its ability to investigate the complaint and resulted in inaccurate information being included in its complaint responses.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communications were inconsistent. Its communications about the lift repair were appropriate. It provided regular and proactive updates. However, its communications around the resident’s vulnerabilities were not appropriate. Neither were its communications about the sink. Though, the landlord has acknowledged this failing.