Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Citizen Housing Group Limited (202443564)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443564

Citizen Housing

19 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2012 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident due to his health.
  2. The resident authorised a representative to act on his behalf with the landlord and us. For this report, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
  3. The resident reported leaks in the property on 29 September 2024 (kitchen) and 17 October 2024 (bathroom). Same day emergency attendances were made for both reports to address the immediate issues, and follow-on work was logged. The resident complained on 23 October 2024 that he was unhappy about the leaks from the upstairs flat. He wanted the repairs completed, and compensation paid for the inconvenience caused.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 5 November 2024 the landlord empathised with the resident’s frustration as a vulnerable individual but could not offer compensation. It asked him to provide evidence that the leaks were caused directly by it or its representatives. It said a technical support surveyor was booked to visit on 7 November 2024 to better understand the repairs required.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 29 November 2024 as he was unhappy with the ongoing management of his reports. On 29 December 2024 he reported, via email, water pooling on his bathroom floor. This was sent after business hours and was picked up on 30 December 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 January 2025. It set out a timeline of reports and its repairs responses, and said:
    1. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused following leaks from the upstairs flat. The leaks had been resolved on 24 November 2024.
    2. A plumber attended the 30 December 2024 report the same day. He found the leak was coming from the water meter cupboard inside the bathroom. He isolated the leak and advised the resident to contact the water company who was responsible for the meter. No further leaks were reported after this.
    3. The water company replaced the meter on 16 January 2025. Any further queries about it should be directed to them.
    4. It did not usually carry out decorating works. However, due to the time taken to resolve the 17 October 2024 leak, it had arranged to complete painting in the kitchen and bathroom.
    5. Repairs were discussed during its surveyor’s visit of 23 January 2025 (it detailed these with actions proposed or to be taken).
    6. It offered £705 compensation, as follows:
      1. £355 for the running cost of the dehumidifier based on 51 days at £5 per day from 11 November 2024 to 16 January 2025.
      2. £250 for the time taken to resolve the leak and the impact on the resident.
      3. £50 for the failed decorating appointment on 8 January 2025 which was attended too early.
      4. £50 for the plastering repair to the ceiling which could not be completed as an electrician was not booked to remove the light fitting.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us in January 2025 and said he was unhappy the landlord was refusing to paint his bathroom wall a particular colour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported various other issues to the landlord such as damp and mould, damaged wallpaper on a bedroom wall, kitchen extractor, doors, cupboards, and kitchen counter repairs. Some of these were listed in the landlord’s stage 2 response where it set out the actions it was going to take. The resident has also told us some of the repairs (carried out after January 2025) have not been completed to an acceptable standard. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. Therefore, our investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s final response of January 2025. As advised, the resident should log a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of his reports after this date. Once this has completed the landlord’s complaint process, he may refer it to us.
  2. The resident has told us that the matters complained of have negatively affected his health. We do not doubt his comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident said he had to make a claim via his own insurer for which he paid an excess. He said his insurer did not cover some of the items requiring repair/replacement, so the landlord should pay for this. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings (such as carpets and underlay). It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged.
  4. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.

Leaks

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible for repairing the leaks. The agreement says that, where the landlord needs to replace an item (that it is responsible for), it may be a different specification from the original. The agreement says the resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property. It says it is the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of the property, which includes internal decorations.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out an emergency response time of 24 hours. It sets out a timeframe of 1 week for follow on work to roofing and work requiring a plumber and/or an electrician. Carpentry and other (unspecified) repairs have a 2-week timeframe.
  3. The landlord has accepted its own and its contractors’ poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord responded to all 3 reports within its emergency response timeframe. There were then some delays in the follow up work for the first 2 reports. However, some of these were unavoidable, such as needing to allow time for fixtures and rooms to dry out. It has acknowledged the avoidable delays in carrying out repairs, as set out in its stage 2 response. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that.
  5. There is no evidence that the third leak reported in December 2024 was caused by the landlord or that it was responsible for repairing it. While the resident might believe otherwise, we note that the water company attended and replaced the meter. It would not have done this if it was not needed, or if it was not responsible for doing so. The landlord responded appropriately to the report and did an emergency fix. It then appropriately signposted the resident to the required next steps. We have not identified a failing in its handling of this report.
  6. The resident argued the landlord was responsible for all repairs, including to decorations within the property, as its operatives caused the leak in the upstairs flat through faulty workmanship. However, we have not seen evidence to support this claim and it is not possible for us to conclude if the leaks were caused by the landlord. We, therefore, rely on the evidence and/or expert opinion provided. The landlord invited supporting evidence to investigate this further, but we have not seen that this was provided to it. If such evidence is available, the resident should provide this for its consideration.
  7. The landlord carried out the repairs it was responsible for under the tenancy agreement. The resident declined its painting offer as it was unable to colour match the existing paint. The landlord’s offer was reasonable given it was not responsible for internal decoration. However, we recommend that, if the resident provides it with the correct colour, it should use this to paint the wall to match.
  8. The resident has expressed his frustration with the inconvenience caused such as by temporary lighting, and the installation of a dehumidifier and its trailing wires. His frustration is understandable given his health, age, and the mobility challenges he has. However, we accept there is a certain level of inconvenience in dealing with situations like these. It cannot be entirely avoided. In consideration of the circumstances and the work required, we do not find these to be an avoidable inconvenience caused by the landlord to the resident.
  9. The resident was unhappy with the running cost of the dehumidifier and the landlord has reimbursed this. He was unhappy about the missed or rescheduled appointments, and the landlord has offered compensation for that. He said his heating was running 24 hours to keep the property warm. Based on the information shared by the resident, there are wider damp and mould concerns in the property, stemming possibly from a leak that occurred 4 years ago. There are also underlying health conditions which make the resident more susceptible to the cold. It is not possible for us to establish a direct link between the landlord’s actions in this case and the use of heating. Therefore, no award is made in that regard.
  10. The resident is unhappy that a family/welfare support officer did not visit him through this period. We have not been provided with evidence that clarifies the role of the support officer or what the landlord’s obligations were. We note that a surveyor and a complaint handler were in regular contact with the resident. The surveyor also made at least 3 visits to the property during this time. However, it is acknowledged that a surveyor and a welfare support officer do not perform the same function. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to explain either the role and obligation of a family/welfare support officer (if a visit by one was not appropriate) or arranges for an officer to visit.
  11. The landlord has accepted its failings, sincerely apologised, and offered £705 compensation. This sum is higher than our own remedies guidance for mid-level maladministration. However, the level of compensation shows that the landlord properly considered the resident’s vulnerability and the impact of its failings on him because of this. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, and put things right.
  12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  13. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £705 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the leaks.
  14. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £705 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the £705 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.
    2. Paint the wall with the colour of the resident’s choice once/if he provides it.
    3. Explain to the resident why/if a visit by a family/welfare support officer was not appropriate. Otherwise, it should arrange for an officer to visit.