Cornwall Housing Limited (202515950)

Decision
Case ID	202515950
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Cornwall Housing Limited
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has reported leaks, pests, damp and mould, damaged flooring, and sewage/drain issues (among others) since 2022. She has previously logged complaints about the landlord’s handling of her reports. Our investigation is focused on the events that followed her leak report of August 2024. The resident has shared her health conditions and vulnerabilities with us and the landlord. She said these have made dealing with some of the issues challenging for her.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of a leak.
   2. Concerns about pest infestations.
   3. Concerns about damp and mould.
   4. Concerns about flooring.
   5. Concerns about sewage/drains.
   6. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pest infestations.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooring.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about sewage/drains.
8. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

9. The landlord did not repair the leak in line with its policy timeframe and procedure. There was an unexplained avoidable delay in arranging the repair.
10. The landlord did not respond promptly to the discovery of a pest infestation by carrying out an inspection or giving appropriate support and guidance. It did not communicate timeframes and plans, requiring the resident to chase for an update on next steps.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and carried out an inspection. The inspection did not identify damp and mould in the property or work needed to address it.
12. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about damaged flooring and carried out an inspection. The inspection did not identify a structural issue or repairs required. It gave appropriate advice and guidance.
13. There is no evidence of recent reports made to the landlord about sewage or drainage issues. It attended the property for an inspection but was unable to discuss the matter with the resident. It has offered to investigate issues if the resident reports them.
14. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy. There was a small delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 but there was no significant adverse impact on the resident of this.

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 16 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has paid directly to the resident £500 compensation to recognise the impact on her of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows:  £150 for its response to her reports of a leak. £350 for its response to her concerns about pest infestations.	No later than 16 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord is ordered to 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 the inspection. 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 it inspects the state of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Whether there are any signs of pest activity. The most likely cause and entry points of any identified pest activity. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to start and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. If/where it is not responsible for repairs it should signpost the resident to further help, advice, and support. The survey report must be shared with the resident and us.	No later than 16 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 28 April and 8 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of pest infestations (rats, woodlice, and a recently spotted nest), roof leak, damp and mould, damaged flooring, asbestos in a cupboard ceiling, and sewage issues. She said the property was not fit to live in and was in a “terrible state” when she moved in 13 years ago. She wanted a full inspection of the property to address issues.
13 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint. It said it surveyed the property, during which the resident raised new issues, and added: It previously addressed a rat infestation, environmentally cleaned the loft, and replaced the insulation. Pest control made 3 visits but could not find the cause, and on the final visit concluded this resolved. It previously blocked and sealed ceiling holes to stop woodlice falling through. It had requested but was not given recent evidence of their continued presence. It had found a gap in the boxing tile trim and had raised a job to seal this. It found a seagull’s nest on the roof, but they were protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It could not remove the nest. It repaired a roof leak on 7 October 2024. The resident confirmed there had been no new leaks in the previous 12 months, and it did not find signs of water damage or staining around the area. It believed the leak to be resolved but she should report any new signs. It recently completed a mould wash and treatment. During its inspection, the resident pointed out areas she believed were affected, but these were found to be decoration defects and an old stain. Several damp meter readings were taken which confirmed the absence of damp and mould. It previously responded to a damp and mould complaint and surveyed the property with an external contractor in June 2023. Evidence of damp and mould was not found then either. It had responded proactively to concerns over the last 2 years without finding issues to rectify. The floor in the property was stained, which was also noted during an inspection 6 months ago. This was not due to an issue with the property. Flooring was the resident’s responsibility to decorate. It investigated the suspected asbestos in the cupboard ceiling in 2023. This was in good condition, and no harm would be caused if left undisturbed. This was unchanged. Sewage issues were not addressed during the inspection as the resident asked the surveyor to leave. It was sorry she was disappointed, but it could not raise jobs for issues it did not find. It was happy to investigate sewage issues further if she wanted.
15 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said: She had not reported a roof leak; she did not know the source of it. She reported water pouring through the boiler (from the ceiling). The landlord’s operatives who attended her report wanted to check the roof via the loft. However, they never entered the loft due to health and safety reasons because on opening the hatch rat droppings fell out and it stank strongly of rat urine. She was left embarrassed, distressed, unable to sleep or eat. She paid to stay at a hotel on the day the loft work was done. She said that it was not convenient or safe for her health to remain in the property. The woodlice had returned in addition to the water falling through the ceiling area where the boiler pipes met. She was continuously spraying mould remover, ventilated daily, and used 2 dehumidifiers to control the damp and mould. The landlord had planned to replace flooring throughout the property many years ago.
17 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, reiterated its earlier explanations, and added: It needed evidence of reported issues to act on them. Pest control was the resident’s responsibility, but it had completed the work as a gesture of goodwill. She said she could not go into the loft to confirm the rats had gone, but its contractors had and found no pest activity. The property was not “rat infested” as she claimed. It had no record of promising to replace flooring. She had reported issues with drainage in the area, and it had written to residents asking them to be mindful of what was put in drains.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said she had to throw out damaged belongings and had now bought a third dehumidifier. She said she moved to the property as it was intended for the above 55-year-olds with disabilities, but there were now families in them. She said she was upset by the lack of temporary accommodation on the day of the loft works. She wants to be moved from the property.

What we did not investigate

15. The resident has reported issues and made complaints (such as the condition of the property on moving in, asbestos, promise to replace flooring, dirty hose taken through the property, dust from the Artex ceiling during the gas central heating installation) for a few years. Complaints should be referred to the landlord and us within a reasonable time of the resident first becoming aware of the issue. Our investigation is focused on the 12 months prior to the current complaint being logged in February 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s earlier handling of her reports and/or complaints is not considered further. However, where relevant, the historical context is noted and reflected in our overall findings.
16. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaints about a further leak, antisocial behaviour, and electricals in the property as part of this complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 June 2025.
17. The resident’s desired outcome is a move to a different property. This is not something we can order. We do not know the availability of suitable properties or the circumstances of others on the transfer list, and we would not make an order which might have an adverse effect on a third party. The resident should discuss this with the landlord separately and follow the process for a transfer.
18. The resident told us that the reported issues have affected her 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
19. It is not within our remit to establish when or how personal belongings were damaged. 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. The resident should consider seeking independent advice if she remains unhappy.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

20. The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs as emergency, urgent, routine or planned. It sets out response times as 24 hours (emergency), 3 working days (urgent heating related), 7 working days (urgent non-heating), and 9 and 12 months (routine and planned repairs respectively). The policy defines uncontainable water/roof leaks as an emergency repair, but a minor leaking roof is considered an urgent non-heating related repair. It says the landlord will assess the urgency of the repair and inform the resident what category it was placed into on reporting.
21. There is some dispute over what was reported to the landlord. We do not doubt what either party has said but must rely on the available evidence to reach answers that are fair, reasonable, and impartial in all the circumstances. Evidence shows the resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2024 and said the boiler had leaked water, describing it as “gushing like Niagara Falls”. She said when she had previously reported this, she was told it was a problem with the roof. This met the landlord’s definition of an emergency repair.
22. Evidence shows an operative spoke with the resident on 20 August 2024 and confirmed the leak was from the roof and not the boiler. There is no evidence of a categorisation assessment or information given to her about the response timeframe. The repair was attended on 18 September 2024, 21 working days after it was reported. However, it was then put on hold due to the discovery of a rat infestation in the loft. There is no evidence of advice given to the resident about next steps, or if a temporary repair was done that day. She then contacted the landlord on 7 October 2024 and confirmed operatives had fixed the hole in the roof, using scaffolding for access. This was 35 working days after the leak was reported and outside its policy timeframe.
23. The delay on 18 September 2024 was unavoidable because of the unforeseen circumstances, but the landlord has provided no explanation for the delay in booking the appointment in the first place. It also has not shown that it gave clear advice to the resident on the next steps and expected timeframes when the repair could not go ahead. We accept that it would have taken some time to arrange and install scaffolding to access the roof. However, it has not evidenced the leak was temporarily repaired during that time.
24. The landlord surveyed the property in May 2025 as the resident said there was still a leak in the roof above the boiler. However, it did not find a further or continuing leak. Therefore, it concluded the leak had been resolved by its repair of October 2024 and no further action was needed. This was a reasonable response at this point.
25. However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak. It did not categorise the repair, communicate appropriately with her, or meet its repair timeframe. Its complaint responses also did not acknowledge or explain these failings. Its handling of the repair was therefore not in line with its policy and procedures.
26. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident with a sincere apology for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures. It is also ordered to pay £150 compensation for the impact on her of these failures. This figure is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the length of time the repair was delayed, its poor communication with the resident, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pest infestations
Finding	Maladministration

27. The landlord does not have a separate pest policy; these are handled in line with its repair policy. This says the resident is responsible for pest control in the property, and should contact environmental health for advice, support, and help in the first instance. It asks residents to contact it for advice if they continue to experience problems after initial treatment. It accepts responsibility for pest control where they are in communal areas or present in more than one property. It describes an urgent repair as a situation which is not an emergency but could pose a health hazard or cause significant inconvenience, discomfort, nuisance, or further deterioration of the structure if the problem persists. The response time is 7 working days for these repairs.
28. Under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for addressing the source of rodent infestations related to the structure of the building. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards during the term of the tenancy; and this includes pests being able to access the property. This means, where a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord should investigate to identify if there are any structural defects allowing the pests to enter the property. If there are, the landlord is responsible for repairing them and treating the infestation caused as a result of the defects.

Woodlice

29. The resident first complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of woodlice in April 2023. We have reviewed the action taken at the time to understand the context and current position of the issue. The landlord surveyed the property in May 2023 and raised work to seal externally under the back door and any gaps in brickwork that might allow woodlice to get in. This was completed in October 2023.
30. The resident then reported woodlice in the property on 19 August 2024. We have not seen evidence of this being picked up until 8 October 2024 when the landlord told her that pests in the property were her responsibility. It did not direct her to environmental health or offer any advice in dealing with the issue. After her complaint in April 2025, it inspected the property. It found evidence of earlier work done to seal holes, but found no current structural issues that might still allow woodlice to get in. It raised work for a tile trim gap found during the visit; this was appropriate.
31. The landlord acted correctly by inspecting the property to confirm there were no structural issues it needed to fix. However, we have not seen evidence that it did so promptly or offered relevant guidance to the resident when she first reported this in August 2024. Given the distress the resident was experiencing during that time (because of the overall circumstances), the delay was unhelpful. At the very least, it should have signposted her to support or said it considered the woodlice to be her responsibility to address. It did not respond to her report within its policy response times.

Rats

32. During the landlord’s visit of 18 September 2024, a rat infestation in the loft was discovered. Its records are not clear on what advice was provided to the resident at that time. However, she chased it on 7 October 2024, asking if it would send pest control. In reply she was told it did not deal with pests and once she had got rid of them it would repair any holes they made. This was not a reasonable response as an infestation cannot usually be eliminated without first finding and repairing any access points caused by structural defects. Again, she was not directed to environmental health for further support and guidance, nor did it provide this itself.
33. The landlord did not arrange to visit the property until the resident reverted, having sought advice, to remind it of its legal obligations and the potential health hazards. It then attended 18 working days after its operatives discovered the infestation, and outside its policy timeframe. It was on notice of a potential issue that it might be responsible for resolving, as well as the resident’s mobility issues which made it difficult for her to get into the loft. It should have arranged to inspect the loft sooner to find the root cause of the infestation.
34. The landlord has not provided us with the report from the 14 October 2024 visit, or even a detailed account of what was done overall. In fact, in its submission to us it said the rat issue was out of time as it occurred in 2023. This is incorrect, as the evidence shows the issue occurred in September 2024, and was therefore, within the scope of our investigation. We have therefore relied on the resident’s emails and the landlord’s own internal communications to understand the timeline and action taken. From the resident’s email of 14 October 2024, we understand that an active infestation was identified. The property was baited, and she was told the operative would return in 7 to 10 days. The source of the rats’ entry was not identified.
35. There is no evidence of a plan being made and shared with the resident. She sent follow-up emails between 14 and 21 October 2024 asking what the next steps were. We have not seen evidence of a plan or an explanation of next steps being provided in response. She told the landlord openly and honestly how the situation was affecting her; she was struggling to sleep and eat, worrying, anxious, and concerned about the implications on her health. The landlord’s delay and lack of communication was not reasonable.
36. Pest control visited the property again on 23 and 29 October 2024. On one of these visits, the resident was told a plan would be given to her. We have not seen evidence that this was done. Instead, she chased the landlord on 14 November 2024 and was then told the loft needed to be cleared and sanitised. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication and said it was deciding next steps. It said the insulation in the loft needed to be removed and replaced, and the property surveyed; it did not give her a timeframe.
37. The work was eventually completed on 29 November 2024, 10 weeks after the infestation was found. The resident said the landlord should have arranged for her to be out of the property on the day the work was carried out, instead she had to pay for a hotel herself. Her tenancy agreement says the landlord will provide reasonable notice prior to carrying out repairs. It says it will provide suitable alternative accommodation where repairs cannot be done unless the resident moves out.
38. We have not seen evidence the resident needed to move out of the property while the work was carried out. Repairs can cause an unavoidable level of disruption and inconvenience, and there was, as she said, inconvenience to her on the day. She has explained why she opted to leave the property on the day to minimise disruption and her concerns (such as access to the toilet via the hallway, confined mainly to the living room, exposure to the old insulation when it was brought down). As a social housing provider, the landlord must ensure its use of funds is justifiable. We cannot reasonably conclude that it would have been a justifiable use of funds to provide alternative accommodation for the day.
39. An internal email noted the landlord was unable to identify any obvious entry points but thought rats could have been entering from the loft next door, through the cavity, or the walls and drainage. This same email noted there had been reports from other residents and rats seemed to be an estate issue. The landlord’s policy says it’s responsible for pest control where the issue is in more than one property. Therefore, if it was in receipt of other such reports, it was on notice already of a wider issue and its own obligations. We have not been provided with evidence of what was done to investigate any previously advised estate issues, or evidence of investigation and/or repairs of the potential entry points it identified.
40. The resident made a further report of suspected rat activity on 4 February 2025, which was attended on 7 February 2025, within the policy timeframe. Rat droppings were found and the landlord told the resident there were possibly 1 or 2 rats in the cavity of a party wall. The property was baited and she was told it would return in 7 to 10 days. We have not been provided with any records of a follow up or further action then taken. Once the resident made her complaint in April 2025, a survey was done. The landlord’s stage 1 response referenced the 2024 reported issue and action it took then. It did not address the more recent report or explain any findings from this. It is, therefore, unclear whether there are rats in the property again or if the entry point identified in February 2025 was repaired.
41. While generally pest infestations in the property are the resident’s responsibility, as the landlord it is responsible for and has the resources to investigate and establish the underlying causes. It should have done more sooner to investigate the matter, especially where the discovery of the infestation was described to the resident as a health and safety issue by its own operatives. It is not clear that it has done enough now to ensure there are no structural issues leading to the infestation.

Summary

42. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pests. Its complaint responses did not acknowledge or redress the failings we have identified. It is ordered to write to her with an apology for the identified failures. It is also ordered to pay £350 compensation for the impact of the distress, worry, upset, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delayed handling, the lack of support and relevant explanations (especially in consideration of her vulnerabilities), its poor communication and the lack of proper updates.
43. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the property. The inspection should establish if there are signs of pest activity, the entry points/structural defects, and the action it will or will not take on its inspection findings. It should provide a copy of the report to the resident, alongside a plan of action (if relevant). If its investigation finds work it is not responsible for, it should explain this clearly in writing to the resident and signpost her to further help, advice, and support. Once it has done so, and if the resident remains unhappy, she may log a new complaint with the landlord about this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould
Finding	No maladministration

44. The landlord has not provided a separate damp and mould policy, and instead this is covered by its repairs policy. The policy does not say how the landlord responds to reports. So, we have investigated its handling of the resident’s concerns with consideration of its legal obligations and established good industry practice.
45. There were 2 separate issues of damp and mould reported by the resident. One was a property wide issue, alongside which she reported an inability to heat the property because it was old, damp, and mouldy. The second the resident described as “shadowy staining and dark spots” that developed after the discovery of the rat infestation in the loft, where the insulation was found to be soaked in rat urine.
46. It is important to note that it is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould or determine how to deal with it in individual properties. We rely on the expertise of surveyors and professionals who inspected the area. Our investigation, therefore, considers only whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the resident’s reports and survey findings, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
47. The ceiling damp and black spotting was addressed as part of the overall work carried out for the pest infestation. The resident first reported this on 12 October 2024. However, the issue could not be fixed until the underlying work was completed on 29 November 2024. Once this was done, the landlord carried out a post inspection on 9 December 2024 and identified work to address the mould. During this visit, it was also noted that the resident had not been using the gas central heating since it was installed. The operative showed the resident how to use the system and told her it was essential in reducing cold spots and damp and mould. The identified work was then completed on 11 December 2024, 2 working days after it was raised.
48. As identified above, there was some delay in carrying out the underlying work, but as that has been addressed within our related orders above, we have not addressed this again. We understand the resident felt this new issue was a continuation of her ongoing concerns about damp and mould. However, this issue had appeared only recently, and while the delay to address it was not ideal, it was reasonable for the landlord to first carry out the work in the loft which was considered to be the underlying cause. The resident later confirmed in February 2025 that the stain removal work had been done and remained successful. In this email, she also confirmed that the property was now a lot warmer.
49. Following the resident’s complaint of April 2025, in which she said the property had an issue with damp and mould, the landlord carried out a survey. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. In this instance, the inspection did not identify damp and mould in the property or work for this. Therefore, there was nothing further for it to do. We understand that due to past issues with damp and mould the resident remains concerned about this. However, evidence shows the landlord has responded to her concerns previously, offered advice, and completed work identified.
50. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. It has responded to her concerns by carrying out the necessary inspections, identified and completed work, and explained its findings. It offered advice about heating the property and explained how this could help with the damp and cold. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooring
Finding	No maladministration

51. The landlord’s repair policy says the resident is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of internal decorations. It says the landlord is responsible for concrete floors, floorboards, and joists but not including laminate flooring. The resident said on moving into the property she paid to have the floors screed. She previously raised concerns that the staining on the flooring was being caused by rising damp. This was investigated by the landlord in 2023 and concluded not to be the case. In her complaint of April 2025, she reiterated this concern and added that the floor was cold and uneven.
52. The landlord re-inspected the flooring in May 2025 in response to her concerns. The survey noted the staining on the floor but did not attribute this to an issue with the property. Uneven flooring was not noted, but that the floor was concrete and as it was covered with linoleum, this left a gap underneath the skirting board, and the flooring felt cold. It was recommended that a change from linoleum to carpeting with underlay might reduce the coldness of the flooring. She was advised that this would be her responsibility under the tenancy agreement.
53. We have not seen evidence of a structural defect in the flooring which the landlord was responsible for repairing. It has responded to the resident’s concerns, carried out an inspection, advised her of her responsibility, and made suggestions that may help with the issue. We have, therefore, found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about flooring.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about sewage/drains
Finding	No maladministration

54. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for blocked toilets, sinks, baths, basins, and blocked or broken guttering within the property. Repairs for these are categorised by assessing the nature and severity of the issue. We did not find evidence of reports made by the resident within the previous 12 months for blocked drains, toilets, or other sewage related issues within the property.
55. The evidence shows there have been sewage issues and blockages in the area which the local water company has fixed. The resident has raised concerns with the landlord for a few years, sharing letters from the water company where they’ve responded to an issue or sent advice about avoiding blockages. The landlord previously contacted a specialist contractor and sought advice. A joint inspection was carried out, it established that no drains ran under the resident’s property, and no drainage problems were found in it.
56. When the resident complained in April 2025, she reiterated her concerns about the events that had occurred in the past. The landlord had not been informed of any recent issues with blocked toilets, drainage etc. Therefore, it responded appropriately by arranging to inspect the property and discuss her concerns during the visit. Unfortunately, that did not happen as the resident asked the surveyor to leave.
57. The landlord has asked the resident to tell it of any current sewage related issues in the property, and it will investigate further. Our investigation did not find evidence of any outstanding sewage issues which the landlord was responsible for. Therefore, we encourage the resident to liaise with it, explain her outstanding concerns, and allow it to investigate and respond to them. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about sewage.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

58. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to issue a stage 1 and stage 2 response within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
59. The resident made a complaint on 28 April 2025, and this was acknowledged by the landlord 6 working days later on 7 May 2025. Its stage 1 response was provided 4 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2025 (after working hours), this was acknowledged within 4 working days, and a stage 2 response was issued 17 working days later.
60. The complaint was handled broadly in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code. While there was a minor delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1, this did not impact the resident. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Learning

61. There has been some overlap between previously reported issues and those considered within our investigation. It was not always clear when an event or issue being referred to was recent or an old event. The landlord has not always managed the resident’s expectations. It should explain that it will not discuss or log complaints about issues that have been investigated before or are too far back in time unless it is a new occurrence. This helps to draw the line under an issue, both for the landlord and the resident, instead of revisiting it repeatedly without the possibility of a resolution.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

62. The landlord did not provide us with all the relevant evidence, and its repair records lacked sufficient details about the reported repairs, notes made on attendance, and relevant follow-on work. Due to gaps in the repair records provided, completion dates were established from references to events within the wider correspondence. For example, the date of the completion of roof repairs was identified from an email sent by the resident on 7 October 2024.
63. The resident has been candid about her health conditions and the difficulties she has in reaching certain areas in the property. Yet, we have not seen evidence of a discussion with her by the landlord to fully understand her needs and vulnerabilities and how it might better support her. Or where it cannot provide the help and support she needs, signpost or refer her to other organisations and agencies that could. We urge the landlord to have an open discussion with the resident and identify areas where it could do more.

Communication

64. The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during repairs and pest control visits. The landlord did not consistently provide timeframes, explain delays, or follow up after key appointments. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.