Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202303911)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303911

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

25 June 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:
    1. handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
    2. response to her concerns about the conduct of an engineer.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has told us that the resident’s son has ADHD and autism.
  2. On 27 March 2023, the landlord raised a repair for a leaking boiler at the property. At this time, the heating and hot water at the property was unaffected. An engineer attended on 13 April 2023 and turned off the resident’s heating and hot water to stop the leak. The resident asked the engineer to leave because of his behaviour, which she described as “rude” and “abrupt”. The engineer reported to the landlord that he was unable to diagnose the issue and that he did not know what parts were required.
  3. On 13 April 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the engineer’s conduct. She also made a general complaint about the landlord’s repairs service, saying that it always took multiple appointments to resolve an issue. She said that her son was neurodivergent and required bathing facilities, and they could not be without heating and hot water. The resident asked about a decant.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 April 2023. It arranged for its contractor to attend to diagnose the issue on 21 April 2023. The landlord said it would provide its stage 1 complaint response by 4 May 2023. On 3 May 2023, the landlord sent a letter to the resident stating that it required an extension to the deadline. It would now respond by 11 May 2023. On 10 May 2023, it informed the resident of a further extension until 18 May 2023. On 19 May 2023, the resident called to complain that she was still without heating and hot water, referring to her son’s needs and the effect on her mental health. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 19 May 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its final, stage 2 complaint response on 19 June 2023. It acknowledged that there had been delays and communication issues. It said it had brought these issues and the complaint about the engineer’s conduct to the attention of its contractor. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 1 June 2023 that the boiler repairs were complete. The landlord offered the resident £265 as a “goodwill gesture” plus £234 to compensate her for the additional electricity used.
  6. After the final complaint response, the resident asked the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation. She felt that a minimum of £820 plus £240 for reimbursement of electricity costs would be appropriate in the circumstances, considering the distress caused to her and her son. She also objected to the landlord crediting the £265 to her rent account, which was in arrears. The landlord told the resident to contact us if she remained dissatisfied. The resident referred her complaint to us on 14 August 2023. The resident feels that the landlord’s offer of compensation is inadequate to reflect the stress and inconvenience she and her son experienced.

Assessment and findings

Boiler repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order the installations it provides for the supply of water, gas and electricity, and for space and water heating. The landlord’s Repairs Policy does not give a timeframe for dealing with “appointed” repairs, defined as repairs that could develop into a hazard or materially affect the enjoyment of the home. The landlord’s website says that “during warmer months repairs that impact the heating system will be actioned within seven days of reporting.”
  2. The landlord raised a repair on 27 March 2023, and an appointment was booked for 4 May 2023. This was within its 7 working day target response time. At the time, according to the evidence, the heating and hot water in the property were unaffected and so the resident and her son were able to bathe normally. The landlord’s initial response was in line with its repairs policy.
  3. After the visit on 13 April 2023, the resident’s property was without heating and boiler-heated hot water until 30 May 2023, which was just over 6 weeks. The landlord has said that the resident had access to hot water via the shower for bathing. The landlord was aware that the resident’s son is neurodivergent, and the resident told the landlord in her complaint of 13 April 2023 that he had specific bathing needs that were not met by showering alone. She also enquired about a decant.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to understand more about her son’s needs. This would have been appropriate to assess whether there was any action the landlord could reasonably take to support the household whilst the boiler was out of action. The landlord’s records do not show whether it considered a decant, and whether its decision was communicated to the resident. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord took adequate action in the circumstances, given the household’s specific needs.
  5. The initial delay in investigating and completing the repair was a result of the engineer’s conduct. This aspect of the complaint is dealt with separately below. The landlord acted quickly to contact its contractor, who then contacted the resident to arrange for a senior operative to attend at a convenient time. The problem was diagnosed on 21 April 2023 and parts ordered. We are satisfied that the landlord and its contractor took reasonable action to progress the repair up until that point.
  6. The contractor missed a repairs appointment scheduled for 28 April 2023 because the operative that had been complained about had been booked to attend the job in error, without arranging for a Housing Officer to be present. The landlord followed up with its contractor on 2 May 2023 but it was unable to arrange an appointment until 9 May 2023 due to the availability of its Housing Officer. The contractor then missed this appointment, as the parts it had ordered had gone missing. It had to re-order the parts and wait for them to arrive.
  7. It appears the additional delay was due to a combination of poor internal communication, staff availability, and unforeseen circumstances. In our view, the landlord failed to effectively manage its contractor to progress the repair. Although some reasons for the delay were outside the parties’ control, the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the delay, meaning that she had to chase up missed appointments. The adverse effect on the household was increased given the resident’s son’s needs.
  8. The landlord offered the resident a total of £499, which included £234 towards additional electricity costs. This amount is in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, which states that it will consider payments for increased bills and that it may offer discretionary compensation of £250-£700 where it has identified considerable service failure or maladministration. The sum of £265 is in line with the amount recommended in our remedies guidance to recognise the adverse effect on a resident where the impact will not be long-term. We therefore consider that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the boiler repairs.

Conduct of engineer

  1. In response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the engineer that attended her property on 13 April 2023, the landlord emailed its contractor that day to relay her concerns. As the engineer also raised concerns about the resident’s behaviour, the contractor asked that future appointments be attended by a Housing Officer. It then appears from the evidence that a senior operative from the contractor attended unaccompanied on 21 April 2023 to diagnose the issue.
  2. The landlord cannot take direct action in relation to a contractor’s member of staff, so it did the right thing by contacting its contractor to report the complaint and asking it to investigate. The landlord balanced the needs of the resident and its contractor by accommodating the contractor’s request for a Housing Officer to attend, whilst asking the contractor to progress the repair with a different engineer.
  3. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the engineer’s conduct. Raising her complaint with its contractor and agreeing to have someone from the landlord’s organisation present to witness the repair, and to support both the resident and the engineer, was a fair and proportionate way of dealing with the complaint.
  4. Ideally, the landlord would follow up with its contractor to confirm the outcome of its investigations into the complaint and any action it intended to take as a result. However, the fact that it did not do so in the circumstances does not, in our view, amount to maladministration, as it concentrated on progressing the repair and apologised to the resident on the contractor’s behalf.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that it will acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within 5 working days. It will aim to provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord needs to extend time for providing a response, its Complaints Policy says that it will write to the resident to explain why and give a timescale for responding. If it needs to extend time beyond 10 working days, this will be agreed with the resident.
  2. The landlord provided a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days, as required by its policy. In the covering email to the acknowledgment, it explained the action it had taken to put things right for the resident, including contacting its contractor to provide feedback and attempting to progress the repair. This demonstrated that it was taking a proactive approach to resolving the issues.
  3. The landlord extended time for providing its stage 1 complaint response twice before agreeing to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the requirements of its Complaints Policy, as it should have agreed any further extension beyond 10 days with the resident.
  4. The landlord said that an extension was required because the repairs had not been completed and it needed more time to investigate. The landlord should not routinely extend time for replying to a complaint because repairs have not been completed. Its own Complaints Policy says that a complaint response should be provided when the answer is known and not when any outstanding actions have been completed. This mirrors paragraphs 6.6 and 6.17 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence explaining why a stage 1 response could not be provided within the 10-day deadline. Although repairs had not been completed at this time, the landlord could have replied to the complaint about the engineer’s conduct and committed to complete the outstanding repairs, providing timescales. The landlord’s failure to follow its Complaints Policy increased the resident’s frustration and caused avoidable stress and inconvenience.
  6. The stage 2 response did not meet the professional standards expected of a landlord organisation. The response was vague and poorly articulated. The landlord also described its offer of compensation as a “goodwill gesture”, which does not reflect the definitions in its Compensation Policy. The compensation payment offered by the landlord would fall into the category of a “discretionary payment” for the stress and inconvenience caused by the avoidable delay in completing the repairs, and its poor complaints handling. Suggesting the payment was offered as “goodwill” likely made the resident feel that the landlord did not take responsibility for its failures.
  7. The landlord confirmed that the £265 compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account, which at that time was in arrears. This was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, which says that “payments will be credited to the rent account where there are rent arrears.” We do not object to this practice where it is permitted under a landlord’s policy, although compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident.
  8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, in recognition of the stress and inconvenience she experienced, and the time and trouble she took to pursue her complaint. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests such sums are appropriate where the landlord’s actions or inaction has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its handling of repairs to the property’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the engineer’s conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints handling.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £265 compensation offered in its final complaint response, together with the £234 for increased electricity costs if this has not already been paid to her. The landlord may wish to credit the £265 to the resident’s rent account if this is still in arrears, in accordance with its Compensation Policy.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord remind staff of the requirements of its Complaints Policy & Processes, including how to approach extensions of time and how to categorise compensation payments.