Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202326263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326263

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request to re-classify the property and reduce the rent.
2. Concerns regarding the legality of the Tenancy Agreement (TA).
3. Request for a transfer to a larger property.
4. Reports of repairs to the floorboards.
5. Concern about the communication regarding the rent increase for 2023 to 2024.
6. Concern that other residents living in the same block pay different rent charges.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived in the 2-bedroom flat since 2018 with her daughter who was born in 2015. The landlord has confirmed the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities but has not provided evidence to confirm this is recorded on its system.
The landlord’s evidence confirms the resident reported creaking floorboards in the living room on 15 September 2022. The records state the request was subsequently “cancelled.” The resident continued to raise the issue through to September 2023, but there is no evidence of any repairs being completed.
On 10 October 2022 the resident asked to be put on the transfer list and on the same day the landlord sent the request to the relevant officer. The resident completed a transfer application form on 12 October 2023 and asked for confirmation of the next steps and a timeframe. By 21 February 2023 the resident was still waiting for this information.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 18 September 2023. She said:
1. under the Housing Act 1988, the property should be classed as a 1–bedroom property as the second bedroom was too small to be a bedroom
2. she had not received contact regarding the rent increase for 2023 to 2024 and did not accept the increase
3. there was no name or legal entity attached to the TA
4. she had reported the creaking floorboards since moving in, and the noise was affecting the mental wellbeing of her and her daughter
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. In summary, it said:
1. the resident viewed the property before signing the TA in 2018 which confirmed the property had 2 bedrooms
2. there was an admin error on the TA which stated the property was suitable for one person
3. regarding concerns about it being a legal entity, it advised it was an exempt charity and was registered with the Homes and Community Agency (HCA)
4. the responsibility to pay the rent was set out in the TA and it would not decrease the rent which was set in accordance with its Rent Setting Policy and followed the government’s rent setting formula each year
5. its position was that it had no previous records about the floorboards, but it would inspect them on 30 October 2023
6. it was sorry the resident felt the transfer process was overwhelming and offered support to help complete the application on 23 October 2023
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2024. She remained unhappy with:
1. the classification of the property and the rent charges
2. the creaking floorboards and the effect it had on her mental health
3. various levels of rent being charged to other residents living in the same block
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 February 2024. In summary, it:
1. confirmed the resident viewed the property and was aware it was a 2-bedroom property before signing the TA
2. advised the second bedroom was measured at 64.9 square feet so from a statutory overcrowding standard, it was suitable as a bedroom for a person under 10 years old
3. confirmed it would not reclassify the property or reduce the rent
4. said it understood the resident wanted to move to a bigger home, but due to shortages in housing, suggested she looked for a mutual exchange
5. apologised the transfer application information provided by the resident had not reached the appropriate team, it said it was unacceptable and agreed to backdate the application to when the information was supplied initially
6. advised it had improved the process for receiving documents in the office, and once the application had been assessed, suggested a call to the resident to discuss the options and potential waiting times for a move
7. confirmed it had sent the rent increase notification to the resident in line with the TA obligations
8. explained the different rent charges that could be in place for residents living in the same block
9. confirmed the TA states the agreement was between the resident and itself, and provided its registration details
10. confirmed a contactor inspected the flooring on 15 September 2022 but acknowledged that after it was referred to the landlord on 3 October 2022 to review, no further action had been taken
11. confirmed it would lift and relay the carpets to allow the flooring repairs
12. advised it inspected the property on 30 January 2024, confirmed it was doing repairs in another property, and if successful it would repair all affected properties by the end of March 2024
13. offered £50 for the breakdown in the transfer application process and inconvenience to the resident, and £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the flooring repairs
The resident referred her complaint to us on 10 May 2024. She said:
1. the flat should not be classified as a 2-bedroom property
2. there was a lack of contact regarding the rent increase
3. residents in the block were paying various levels of rent
4. the landlord had not addressed the flooring issue
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident asked the landlord:
1. to move her to a bigger property
2. to repair the flooring and pay compensation for the length of time the flooring issue had been ongoing and the impact on her health
3. to better explain the rent and the increases

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of her and her daughter. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.

Re-classification of the property and reduce the rent

We cannot assess if the property is classified correctly or assess if the level of rent charged is reasonable. We can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding this matter.
The resident raised her concern about the size of the second bedroom on 11 October 2022 and 28 August 2023 but there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident on either occasion. The resident raised the issue for the third time as part of her complaint on 18 September 2023 when she said she had measured the bedroom as 66 square feet. She noted her position that under the Housing Act 1988, it was too small to be considered a bedroom. The resident said her daughter needed a bigger room to help her mental wellbeing.
The landlord provided its response as part of its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. It confirmed the classification of the property was a 2-bedroom and said the resident was aware of the size before signing the TA. It said the resident would not have been offered a 1-bedroom property with a child. The landlord’s response was reasonable, but it was a failure that the resident had to raise a complaint to receive a response to her concern.
The resident escalated the issue on 25 January 2024. The landlord confirmed its position and decision on 20 February 2024 within its final complaint response. It confirmed the statutory overcrowding standards advised a room of between 50 to 70 square feet was suitable for a person under the age of 10. It confirmed it had measured the bedroom on 30 January 2024 at 64.9 square feet, and therefore it was suitable as a bedroom for her daughter.
The landlord explained the room fell below the requirements for new build homes, however her property was built before these standards were in place. The landlord confirmed it would not reclassify the property or reduce the rent.
In summary, we find service failure. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints, its responses were reasonable and provided clarity around its position and decision making. However, it missed the opportunity to address the issue in October 2022 and only responded to the resident’s concerns as part of a complaint response. The landlord did not highlight this failure or recognise the time and effort of the resident pursuing a response.
An order has been made to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of service failure where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and where it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.

Concerns regarding the legality of the TA

It is not our role to assess the legalities of the TA as this is a contractual agreement between the landlord and resident. We can, however, assess if the landlord responded appropriately and in a timely manner to the resident’s concerns. If the resident remains unhappy with the legal status of the TA, she may wish to seek legal advice as it may be more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.
The resident raised her concern regarding the TA on 18 September 2023. She said there was “no name or legal entity attached which means [the landlord] is a corporation, and money had been obtained and therefore its breach of not being a housing association.” She also asked why the money was not going back into properties to help living conditions, and why the landlord was building flats instead of houses.
In its stage 1 complaint on 20 October 2023 the landlord confirmed it was an exempt charity and was registered with the HCA. It confirmed it had built 41 new homes that year and said its focus had been on how it could achieve its goal of providing affordable homes at a lower cost. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It sought to explain its legal status and how money was being used, which was appropriate.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the issue on 25 January 2024. In its final complaint response on 20 February 2024, the landlord confirmed the TA signed by the resident in May 2018 showed the arrangement between itself and the resident. It provided an extract of the TA within its response to confirm this, along with the registration details which it included in its letters. This was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
In summary, we find no maladministration. The landlord gave a clear and timely response when the issue was raised and provided evidence of the agreement made and its status as a housing association.

Request for a transfer to a larger property

As part of the resolution to her complaint, the resident asked to be moved to a larger property. It is not appropriate for us to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations. We are unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request.
The landlord’s Transfer Policy states:
1. residents who want to move from one property to another need to register by completing a Transfer Application Form
2. once an application is assessed, it is placed in banding and date order (bands range from Band A (emergency) to Band D (low priority) depending on the circumstances and the information and evidence provided)
3. properties on to the transfer list will generally be offered to the applicant with the highest banding and earliest registration date who best meets the criteria for the property
4. once the landlord receives a transfer application, it will be acknowledged within 5-working days, and a final decision will be made within 20-working days
5. if a medical officer reviews an application, once the decision has been made a letter confirming the resident’s position on the transfer list will be sent to the resident within 5-working days
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states compensation may be offered for a failure to provide a service to a published standard, or for a failure to follow a policy, procedure, or guidance.
The resident asked to be put on the transfer list on 10 October 2022. On the same day, the landlord confirmed it had passed the request to the appropriate officer who would contact within 2-working days. The landlord called the resident on 12 October 2022 when she said she was distressed with the living conditions and wanted guidance on the next steps and a timeframe for a transfer. The landlord told her she needed to complete a transfer application form and provided the link to the form via the website. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The resident raised the issue in her complaint on 18 September 2023. She referred to the property size and overcrowding and said she needed a bigger property. The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 October 2023. It apologised that the resident felt the process was overwhelming and offered a call on 23 October 2023 to support with the application. This was reasonable and demonstrated its commitment to provide support with the process. The landlord called the resident, and she advised she was on the autistic spectrum and had found it difficult getting her medical information from her GP. She agreed to complete the form and take it to the office the following month.
While there is evidence of the resident sending a completed transfer application to the landlord on 12 October 2022, and again on 5 November 2023, there is no evidence of an acknowledgement or update from the landlord. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
In its final complaint response on 20 February 2024, the landlord confirmed the resident’s transfer application had not reached the appropriate team. It agreed it was unacceptable, apologised, and confirmed the improvements it had made to ensure all documents were logged on receipt before being scanned and sent to the relevant team. It was appropriate that it acknowledged it failings and explained the learning it had identified.
The landlord confirmed a further application would be needed and advised it had a member of staff on hand to collect the documents from the resident. It agreed to backdate the application call the resident once it had been assessed to discuss the options and how long it could take. The landlord advised the resident that due to limited homes, it could be years before a transfer happens. It recommended the resident contacted the local authorities directly and looked at the mutual exchange option. This was reasonable as it sought to measure the resident’s expectations and took steps to ensure her application was successfully received and processed.
In recognition of the failings it had identified, the landlord offered £50 compensation. However, the resident provided evidence to confirm the landlord had lost 2 of her application forms, not one. The landlord subsequently confirmed receipt of the third attempt and on 16 May 2024, it re-assessed the compensation offered and increased this to a total of £150 in recognition of the time, trouble, and distress caused by the mislaid transfer applications.
Considering the above, we find that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress. The landlord identified the service failures and the impact on the resident. It introduced improvements to ensure the failures were not repeated and offered compensation that was in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failing, but where there was no permanent impact on the resident and where the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an attempt to put things right.

Reports of repairs to the floorboards

The resident has stated she has been reporting the problem with the floorboards since she moved into the property. This is not disputed; however, there is no evidence to suggest a formal complaint was made prior to September 2023. We consider it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is therefore reasonable to focus on events from September 2022 to 20 February 2024, the date of the final complaint response.
The landlord’s Repair Standards states where required, repairs will be pre-inspected by the landlord or a delegated contractor so a detailed specification of works can be issued to the contractor.
The landlord’s Repair Booklet states:
1. it is responsible for the maintenance of floor structures, but residents are responsible for repairing or replacing floor coverings in all rooms except kitchens and bathrooms
2. it will complete urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs (all joinery work that is nor urgent) with 28 days
The resident reported a problem with the floorboards creaking in the property on 15 September 2022. The landlord later confirmed a contractor attended in October 2022; however, its records do not reflect this. This is a record keeping failure.
In October 2022 and February 2023, the resident referred to the noisy floorboards in her contact with the landlord. She said they did not meet health and safety standards and had been an issue since she moved in but had not been resolved. She said her and her daughter could not walk around, her neighbours were affected, their sleep was disturbed, it was affecting her daughter’s behaviour, and the noise was so bad, her daughter was sleeping elsewhere. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident or referred the issue to the repairs team. This was not appropriate. The landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to resolving the issue as per its repair responsibilities or demonstrate an understanding of the impact it was having on the resident and her daughter.
The resident included the issue in her complaint on 18 September 2023. She said the noise was “unbearable” and it was affecting her mental wellbeing. In its stage 1 response the landlord said there was no record of the issue being reported and confirmed a surveyor would inspect the flooring on 30 October 2023. It did not demonstrate a thorough review of its records at this time, as there was evidence of a report in September 2023. This was unreasonable.
The inspection report confirmed the flooring in the bedroom and the living room was “extremely noisy.” The landlord advised the resident a contractor could repair the flooring, but she would need to remove the floor coverings to allow this. The report states the resident was not willing to do this. It states the resident said the landlord should do it as it was responsible for the flooring and it should have been resolved before she moved in. The resident said she should also be compensated for new carpets. The landlord confirmed it could not facilitate the carpet removal or compensation for new carpets, therefore, it was unable to arrange the repairs. It said if the resident completed the removal work needed, it would request an appointment for the repairs.
The resident escalated the matter on 25 January 2024. The landlord inspected the flooring for a second time on 30 January 2024 when it confirmed the sub flooring creaked in the hall, living room, and both bedrooms. The landlord again recommended the removal of the floor coverings prior to repairs to the chipboards and joists.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord told the resident it had inspected various flats in the same block and found similar issues. It advised it had asked a contractor for a quote for the repairs and said it had selected a flat as a pilot due to it being less intrusive to the resident. The landlord said the repairs would be post inspected and if the problem was resolved, it would arrange the work to be completed in the resident’s flat. This was a reasonable approach to take while consideration the disturbance and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord confirmed its approach in its final complaint response on 20 February 2024 when it also confirmed it would use its discretion to remove and relay the carpet for the resident. It advised the repairs in the pilot flat would begin on 26 February 2024 and once it was confident the repairs had been successful, it aimed to complete all the repairs by the end of March 2024. The landlord confirmed it would maintain contact about the repairs and would provide an update by 1 March 2024. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to keeping the resident updated on progress.
In its final complaint response letter, the landlord confirmed the resident had reported the flooring on 15 September 2022. It said a contractor had visited and noted the floorboards were squeaky, but did not believe any repairs were needed. The contractor referred the matter back to the landlord on 3 October 2022 to review, but the landlord acknowledged it did not follow the referral up, so no further action was taken at the time. It apologised and offered £250 compensation for the time taken and distress and inconvenienced caused. However, on 16 May 2024, with the flooring repairs still outstanding and prior to us accepting the case for investigation, the landlord re-assessed its compensation offer. It increased the compensation and offered a total of £500 for its service failure and the distress caused.
The repairs were not successful in the pilot property, but the landlord kept the resident updated with what it was doing. Throughout March to September 2024 the landlord and resident were in regular contact regarding suitable dates for the repairs to be completed. The resident has confirmed to us the repairs were completed in November 2024 and while the noise is not as bad, the flooring has started to creak again.
In summary, we find reasonable redress. This is because the landlord recognised its service failure and the distress and inconvenience to the resident. It revisited and increased its offer of compensation to a level that was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration.

Concern about the contact regarding the rent increase for 2023 to 2024

We are unable to consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service increase. While we can consider if the landlord’s communication to the resident regarding the increases was in line with its obligations, if the resident continues to have concerns regarding the level of rent charged, she may wish to seek legal advice.
The resident’s TA states:
1. the landlord can increase rent to take effect on the first Monday in April immediately following the date of the TA or the date of any subsequent amendment to the terms of the TA, and thereafter on the first Monday in April of each succeeding year
2. the landlord will give a resident not less than one month’s written notice of any increase in rent and the notice will specify the proposed new rent and the date on which this will take effect
The landlord’s evidence confirms it notified the resident of the rent increase for 2023 to 2024 on 23 February 2023. The notification letter explained the government’s rent standard for increasing rent and why the landlord had taken the decision to cap the increase at 7%. The letter provided guidance if a resident did not accept the proposed new rent which included making a referral to the tribunal. The letter advised the resident to make the referral before the starting date of the proposed rent, and to notify the landlord if this was the action the resident was taking. The landlord’s communication was appropriate and in line with its obligations stated in the TA.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 September 2023 when she said she had not received contact regarding the rent increase. She said she was paying over what was due and no repairs or improvements had been completed. The landlord responded on 20 October 2023. It confirmed the resident’s responsibility to pay rent was set out in the TA and the rent was set in accordance with the government guidelines each year. It confirmed it could not reduce the rent.
The landlord’s response was reasonable; however, the resident raised the issue again in her complaint escalation. In its final complaint response on 20 February 2024, the landlord confirmed the annual rent increase and when this was applied. It advised it sent the notifications of rent increases towards the end of February each year and confirmed the letter for the 2023 to 2024 charges were sent to the resident on 23 February 2023. This was reasonable.
In summary, the landlord notified the resident of the rent increase in line with its obligations of the TA. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Concern that residents living in the same block pay different rent charges

The resident raised this issue in her complaint escalation on 25 January 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord not to disclose resident’s individual circumstances, it confirmed there were likely to be 3 types of rents and reasons why residents living in the same block, in similar properties may be charged different rents. It explained the different rents (fair rent, social rent, and affordable rent) and advised this was in line with the government guidance on how rent should be calculated and reviewed each year. The landlord provided signposting information to the government website to support its response.
The landlord provided a clear and timely response to the issue raised by the resident. It provided an explanation of the types of rents and the reasons why, while providing appropriate signposting information to the resident. A finding of no maladministration is therefore appropriate.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it will log and acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 2-working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the receipt.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 September 2023, and the landlord acknowledged it the following day. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord’s internal records confirm it had assigned the complaint to the wrong person. Its records state it had put the complaint “on hold” for a further 2 weeks to allow time for the investigation. The case handler asked if it could be done on return from leave on 16 October 2023. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have arrangements in place to ensure complaints are not delayed due to annual leave. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any communication with the resident regarding the delay, or an expected response date. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023, 24-working days from when it was received. The landlord’s complaint handling and lack of communication to the resident was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the delay in its response. It did not offer the resident an explanation or apology and did not offer any redress in line with its Compensation Policy for failing to follow a policy. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the same day and provided its final complaint response on 20 February 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with its policy. The landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident, provided a clear response to each and confirmed the next steps in relation to the flooring repairs, including the date as to when it would provide an update. This was reasonable.
Considering the above, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. While the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint was of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident, the landlord’s lack of communication and acknowledgement of the delay was unreasonable. This meant the landlord did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence in future cases.
An order has been made to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure of short duration that did not adversely impact the resident but was not appropriately acknowledged by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to re-classify the property and reduce the rent.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the legality of the Tenancy Agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer to a larger property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the contact regarding the rent increase for 2023 to 2024.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that residents living in the same block pay different rent charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
2. paid the resident a total of £100, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to address the reclassification of the property at an earlier stage
  2. £50 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the delays in the landlord’s complaint response

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £650 that was offered in its revised compensation offer from 16 May 2024. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the flooring and the transfer request is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
The landlord should consider contacting the resident to inspect the flooring to determine if it can do any repairs to prevent the further creaking.
The resident has advised she is unsure what is happening with her transfer application. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to provide her with an update.
The landlord has been made aware of the resident’s health conditions. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm these and update its system as necessary.