East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202434304)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434304

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

30 July 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 handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of boiler faults.
3. A flood in the living room.
4. Leaks under the kitchen sink.
5. Gutter repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has it noted that the resident and his wife have medical conditions, some of which affect their physical mobility.
The resident has said he has had problems with damp and mould in the property from at least February 2020.
On or around 9 December 2022 the resident reported a flood in the living room due to water coming from under the ground. The landlord said it attended that day and found and repaired the cause, which was a leak from the wall behind the kitchen sink base unit.
In January and February 2023 the landlord noted it attended to check and clear blocked guttering (which was potentially causing damp) and to treat mould in the bathroom.
The resident reported that damp and mould had reappeared in the bathroom in May 2023. The landlord inspected the following month and noted there was mould on the bathroom walls. It identified works required and noted these were completed the same month.
The resident made his first complaint on 9 October 2023. He said:
1. Pipework for the kitchen sink was faulty.
2. The living room flood had caused damage to his carpet and he wanted compensating.
3. It had taken the landlord a long time to do anything about the damp and mould in the bathroom.
4. There had been issues with the boiler for a long time.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 October 2023 it said:
1. It had resolved the leak that caused the flood in December 2022 in a timely manner. It would not compensate for damage to the carpet as there had been no service failure.
2. It had taken 18 months to resolve the damp and mould, which was too long. It apologised and offered £180 compensation.
In December 2023 the resident’s solicitor sent a legal letter of disrepair claim to the landlord. This listed defects including damage to the living room carpet from a flood, damp and mould, defective boiler and external guttering. The resident’s claim was not issued in court and went through the pre-action protocol stages only.
The resident reported problems with the gutters in February 2024, which he said was causing water to run down the external walls. The landlord attended the following month and noted the resident would not allow the required works to be completed, and asked for a report to be provided.
The landlord inspected the property on 27 August 2024. It noted:
1. There were gutter defects and recommended works to address this. It said these were completed in October 2024.
2. The resident confirmed the boiler was working satisfactorily.
3. There was minor staining on the living room carpet.
4. There were no signs of damp and mould in the bathroom.
5. There was a leak from the pipework under the kitchen sink, which had caused damp to the base unit cupboard. It recommended works to resolve this, which it said were completed in October 2024.
On 17 September 2024, following a call with the resident, the landlord raised a second stage 1 complaint about:
1. The living room carpet which had been damaged by a flood.
2. Damp and mould in the bathroom, which had been treated but was still present.
3. The boiler, which was working but made a “terrible noise”.
4. Damp floors and a damp cupboard in the living room as a result of a water leak that came from under the floor.
5. Damage to a kitchen cupboard caused by a water leak, which was ongoing.
6. Faults with gutters that caused water to run down the external walls.
7. He asked for the repairs to be completed and compensation to be paid.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 1 October 2024. This said there was an active disrepair claim and the concerns raised were part of this. It confirmed it would attend to complete any works and any compensation would be dealt with through the legal claim. The complaint was not upheld.
A week later the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and asked the landlord to re–evaluate the matter. Following our intervention, the landlord escalated the second complaint to stage 2 on 26 March 2025. In its stage 2 response of 29 March 2025 the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £300 compensation.
2. Confirmed it had inspected the property on 5 December 2024 and all repairs raised as part of the disrepair claim had been completed.
3. Noted that it had identified further works, including checking the drains beneath the property and investigating a possible leak in the bathroom. It had attended for both of these in December 2024, but the resident had not given access for one of these appointments.
The landlord reinspected the property on 15 April 2025 to investigate the ongoing issues and completed a structural survey on 7 May 2025. It identified further works required and noted these were completed in May and June 2025.
The resident has asked us to investigate his complaint. He has said the landlord has taken recent action but not all issues are resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us he has had problems with the boiler and damp and mould from at least 2020. The scope of this investigation has included events that occurred 12 months before he raised his first complaint in October 2023. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of issues prior to October 2022 has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord denied liability in its response to his legal disrepair claim at the pre-action protocol stage. Our investigation is not a legal process and sits separately from this. Therefore, we cannot comment on or assess the landlord’s handling of this matter, as this is an issue for the courts to determine. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has also raised concerns about his solicitor’s handling of the disrepair claim on his behalf. As the solicitors are not a member of our Scheme, we have no jurisdiction to assess their handling of the legal case. The resident can approach the Legal Ombudsman if he wishes to raise these concerns further.

Damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords not only treat it, but also seek to identify and resolve the underlying cause. The landlord did this in December 2022 and June 2023 when it raised jobs to treat the mould in the bathroom and address possible underlying causes including guttering and ventilation. This was positive and showed the landlord wanted to resolve the issues.
The works order raised to treat the mould on 12 December 2022 had a target date of 7 days later (19 December 2022). This showed the landlord was treating this job as urgent, which was sensible considering it was aware the resident and his wife had vulnerabilities. However, despite raising the works order with a 7–day deadline, the landlord did not attend until more than 3 weeks later, on 3 January 2023.
When the landlord attended on this date, it could not complete the job in full and noted more time was needed. Again, it should have prioritised reattending to complete the work, but it did not. It reattended more than 6 weeks later, on 15 February 2023. This means it took the landlord more than 9 weeks to fully remove the mould from the property. This was an unreasonable delay that amounts to maladministration and is particularly concerning considering it knew the resident and his wife have health issues.
When the landlord attended on 15 February 2023, it noted the mould had returned much worse. While it treated this, it also raised a works order 9 days later for a further inspection. This was sensible to investigate any other possible causes. The landlord attended on 9 March 2023 and noted there was no mould and that the bathroom extractor fan was working. This showed it had not only considered the presence of mould but any possible underlying causes as well, which was positive.
Our damp and mould spotlight report says it is good practice for landlords to proactively follow up with a resident after completing damp and mould works to ensure this has been resolved. This avoids the resident having to repeatedly make reports to the landlord. Following the works completed in June 2023, there is no evidence the landlord scheduled any follow up with the resident. This meant he expended time and trouble on reporting further mould build up on 6 April 2024. This amounts to maladministration and, had the landlord been more proactive in following up, it may have prevented this failure in service.
Despite the resident making this report in April 2024, there is no evidence the landlord took any action until 4 months later when it inspected the property, on 27 August 2024. It noted there were no signs of damp and mould and, while positive, it did not know this when the resident made the report 4 months earlier. Therefore, it should have taken action sooner to investigate this. This was particularly important as this was not the first time the resident had reported mould and repeated reports suggested this could be a recurring issue. The landlord’s failure to take timely action to investigate the resident’s report amounts to maladministration.
The landlord completed another inspection on 5 December 2024 and told the resident in its stage 2 response to the second complaint that all the issues raised as part of the disrepair claim (including the damp and mould) had been resolved. Despite this, the landlord identified further investigative works needed, including a drain survey and possible leak investigation in the bathroom due to water damage to the wall and skirting. These works indicated that the damp and mould issue was not resolved and required further investigation. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to say the matter was resolved, when it was not.
The landlord went on to complete some of the investigative works the same month. However, when it attended on 19 December 2024 for one appointment, this did not go ahead. The landlord said the resident did not allow access. However, we have seen no evidence he was told about this appointment in advance, so it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect him to give access in the circumstances. This contributed to the overall delay in the landlord investigating and resolving the damp and mould.
After this appointment, there is no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident to progress the investigation until further contact from him and the council’s environmental health team on his behalf, in January 2025. This was particularly upsetting for the resident as, by the time he contacted the landlord on 20 January 2025, he reported there were mushrooms growing in the bathroom.
The landlord attended on 24 January 2025, when it removed the mushrooms and treated the mould in the bathroom. It identified some further possible causes and recommended another inspection to assess this. The landlord confirmed this in writing to the resident 3 days later. However, it did not take action to arrange the inspection until 2 months later. This was only after the resident had chased it up on 21 February 2025 and escalated his complaint to stage 2, via us, in March 2025. This delay amounts to maladministration and contributed to the overall delay in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
As part of the works completed in May and June 2025, the landlord installed a dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom. The resident has told us this was noisy and meant he was restricted in being able to go out as he could not leave it running. While inconvenient for the resident, it was sensible for the landlord to install this in order to speed up the drying out process. This was particularly important as it knew the resident and his wife had health issues.
The resident has told us the dehumidifier aggravated his health and led to medical complications. He said he felt the landlord should have offered alternative housing while it was installed in the property. For reasons set out above, installation of a dehumidifier can be a sensible action to take and this alone would not normally require the landlord to temporarily rehouse a resident. Where there are specific medical concerns, landlords should consider these and assess whether rehousing is required. We have seen no evidence that the resident told the landlord that the dehumidifier negatively impacted his health. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider temporary rehousing for him.
The landlord has confirmed all works were completed in June 2025. While positive, this is more than 2 years since the resident first reported this issue. We acknowledge there has not been damp and mould in the property for the entirety of this time. However, this investigation has highlighted that the landlord did not do enough to progress action in a timely manner and was not pro-active in following up with the resident to ensure the issues were resolved. For these reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
We recognise that resolving damp and mould can be challenging for landlords and often requires an incremental approach. This makes it even more important for landlords to keep in contact with residents to review progress and ensure actions taken achieve long term resolutions. We have ordered the landlord to share learning from this investigation with the relevant service area to identify any changes it can implement to avoid similar failures happening in the future.
We also order the landlord to schedule a follow up inspection with the resident for 3 months’ time to pro-actively review this matter and confirm whether the damp and mould has returned and if any further actions are needed. The landlord to confirm the scheduled inspection date and time in writing to the resident.
In the second stage 1 complaint, raised in September 2024, the resident said there was damp in the living room. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated or responded to this as part of the formal complaint. Similarly, the resident told the landlord on 6 February 2025 that a patch of skirting board in the living room was damp, which had caused mushrooms to grow on it. While the landlord replied to this email, it only asked if the resident was in touch with his solicitor about the disrepair claim and took no action to investigate or address this issue. This was disappointing for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
The resident’s concerns about damp in the living room were considered as part of the structural survey in May 2025. The subsequent report confirmed there was damp in the carpet and skirting board and suggested this was likely related to problems in the bathroom. It said once water leaks in the bathroom were resolved, any damp in the living room should dry out but making good works would be needed. The landlord has confirmed this work has been completed, which is positive. However, it is important that the landlord assesses the condition of the living room on its follow up visit, to ensure this does not reoccur.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the damp and mould in the stage 1 response to the first complaint. It apologised and offered £180 compensation. While positive that it did this, we have identified further failures in its handling of this matter. In consultation with our remedies guidance, it is our view that the redress offered does not go far enough to address the detriment caused to the resident. Therefore a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £400 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures. The resident has told us the damp and mould negatively affected his health. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health, as this is more appropriately assessed via a personal injury insurance claim. Therefore, we cannot order compensation in respect of this.

The resident’s reports of boiler faults

The landlord is responsible for boiler repairs in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it must keep in repair and proper working order installations in the property for space and water heating. This includes the boiler.
Within the scope of our investigation, the resident first raised concerns about the boiler as part of his complaint in October 2023. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord did anything to investigate and it did not respond to these concerns within the first stage 1 response. The resident replied to this on 17 November 2023 and said again there were problems with the boiler. However, there is no evidence the landlord did anything in response to this either. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
The resident reported faults with the boiler again within the legal letter of claim, sent in December 2023. While this was discussed during the surveyor’s inspection in August 2024, this was 8 months later and there is no evidence the landlord took any immediate action to investigate, which it should have done.
The landlord completed the annual gas safety check in May 2024 and no defects were noted. While this is positive and suggests there may not have been a fault, the landlord did not know this at the time the resident reported his concerns many months earlier. Therefore, it should have done more to investigate his concerns in a timely manner to reassure him and itself there were no faults.
When the resident raised further concerns about the boiler as part of the second complaint in September 2024, there is again no evidence the landlord did anything to investigate this. It was only 7 months later, when it completed the annual gas safety check, in April 2025, that a gas engineer attended to inspect the boiler. At that time, it identified a replacement valve was needed. It is not clear if this was the cause of the “terrible noise” reported by the resident. However, as he had reported this concern many months before, the landlord should have done more to investigate sooner.
Despite the resident raising concerns about the boiler on multiple occasions since October 2023, there is no evidence the landlord took timely action to investigate and address his concerns. While action was taken via the annual gas safety checks, these were not done in response to the resident’s concerns and happened many months after he made his reports. This was frustrating for him and made him feel the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord’s handling of this issue amounts to maladministration. We have made orders for it to apologise and pay the resident £175 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge these or put things right.
The resident has confirmed that the boiler has been repaired. However, he has said there are radiators not working. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to send a gas engineer to investigate this issue.

Flood in the living room

The landlord is responsible for repairs to internal and external pipework in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes pipework.
The landlord’s repairs policy says emergency repairs are those needed to avoid immediate danger to residents’ health and safety or serious damage and destruction to property. When the resident reported the flood in the living room on 9 December 2022, it was reasonable that the landlord treated this as an emergency repair. This is because water was flooding the property from under the ground, which was a health and safety issue and could have caused serious damage to the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. The landlord has confirmed it attended and resolved the leak on the 9 December 2022, which was in line with the 24 hour committed response time, set out in its policy.
While the landlord has confirmed this, its repairs records do not clearly reflect this. There are notes which indicate a visit was made on 9 December 2022 but that it was unable to locate and repair the leak. There are further notes which confirm the leak was located but the date of this subsequent action was not clear and it was only on further enquiry with the landlord that we received confirmation of when this occurred.
It is important that the landlord’s repair records clearly reflect what actions have been taken and when. This is important so the landlord can monitor its own handling of repairs in line with its committed timescales. This is also vital for use in its complaint investigations and to account for its actions to residents and us, where required.
We understand in this circumstance, the report and subsequent visit were made out of hours and, because of this, there may have been a delay in it raising the works order for this job. Despite this, it is important that landlords have suitable arrangements in place to accurately record reports and subsequent actions taken. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to review how it records out of hour repair reports and actions taken to ensure these are accurate.
In order to resolve the flood, the landlord had to remove the back of the kitchen unit and chop out part of the wall to find and repair the leak. Therefore, once the leak was resolved, it needed to complete repairs to make good this damage. Despite repairing the leak on 9 December 2022, the landlord did not raise a works order for this job until 23 March 2023. This was more than 3 months after the leak was resolved and represents an unnecessary delay.
The landlord raised this job as a routine repair, which was reasonable considering the leak had been resolved. Its tenant handbook says it will complete routine repairs within 42 days (6 weeks). The landlord completed this job on 15 June 2023, which was 85 days (over 12 weeks) after the job was raised. This was not in line with the committed timescale for routine repairs.
In total, it took the landlord 189 days (27 weeks) from when the leak was repaired, to complete the making good works. This was an unreasonable delay. While the leak was fixed and the flood issue resolved in a timely manner, there was a hole in the wall and damage to the kitchen cupboard for an extended period. The delay in the landlord repairing this meant the resident was left living in a damaged property for longer than he should have been. This amounts to maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
The resident asked the landlord to pay compensation for his living room carpet, which was water damaged. The landlord declined to pay this on the basis there was no service failure in its handling of the flood. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not consider compensation when floods have damaged a resident’s belongings and it has acted promptly to repair and make safe the property after the initial report.
In this case, while the landlord delayed in completing the making good works, it did attend promptly and in line with its repairs policy to repair the leak that caused the flood. Therefore, it was reasonable that it declined to pay compensation for the resident’s damaged carpet. The resident was unhappy that the landlord advised him to claim for this damage on his contents insurance. While frustrating for him, this was sensible advice as the landlord had declined to compensate for it.

Leaks under the kitchen sink

The landlord is responsible for repairs to internal and external pipework in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes pipework.
As part of the first complaint in October 2023, the resident said pipework for the kitchen sink was faulty. There is no evidence the landlord did anything to investigate this and it did not respond to this concern within the stage 1 response. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
During the inspection on 27 August 2024 the landlord identified a drip leak from the pipework under the kitchen sink. As this was a slow, containable leak, it was reasonable that it dealt with it as a routine repair. However, it would have been sensible for it to progress the repair as quickly as possible to avoid the leak getting worse and to reduce the amount of damage caused.
The landlord raised a job for this on 20 September 2024, nearly 4 weeks later. Considering there was an ongoing leak, albeit a slow one, the landlord should have progressed this sooner. The landlord noted it repaired the leak on 17 October 2024, 28 days after the job was raised. While this was in line with the 42 day committed timescale for routine repairs, this was 52 days after it had identified the leak. This was not in line with the 42 day committed timescale for routine repairs and was too long considering there was water leaking under the sink, causing damage to the base unit. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord completed a post inspection on 5 December 2024, which was sensible to ensure the job had been completed satisfactorily. The resident then raised further concerns about the leak under the sink and damage caused on 20 January 2025. While the landlord completed further inspections in January and April 2025, there is no record it investigated this issue. It was only when an independent structural survey was completed in May 2025, that the issue was looked at again.
The structural surveyor’s report confirmed a leak was witnessed and there was water damage to the cupboard. It is not clear if this was the same leak as before or a new leak. Regardless, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not look into it sooner, when the resident raised it in January 2025. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks under the kitchen sink. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and it failed to acknowledge these or put things right.

Gutter repairs

The landlord is responsible for gutters repairs in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including gutters.
It is reasonable that the landlord treats gutter defects as routine repairs. This is because any leaks from the gutters are external and not continuous, as they only occur when it rains. The landlord raised routine works orders for blocked gutters in January and February 2023. On both occasions, it noted the works were completed within the 42 day timescale for routine repairs.
It is not clear why the landlord needed to raise a second works order in February 2023, when the first one was noted as completed the month before. This suggests works completed in January 2023 did not fully resolve the issue, which is a concern. However, due to the lack of detail in the repair notes, we are unable to make further assessment of this.
The resident’s letter of claim sent in December 2023 included a report of defective gutters. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to investigate until after the resident re-reported the issue on 21 February 2024. At that point he said there was water gushing down the external walls because of the faulty gutters. The landlord then raised a works order to address this. The 2 month delay in the landlord progressing this amounts to maladministration and meant the resident was left living with leaking gutters for longer than he should have been.
The landlord raised a routine works order on 23 February 2024 and attended 14 days later, on 7 March 2024. This was in line with the committed response time for routine repairs. At this appointment, the landlord noted the resident declined for any works to go ahead and asked for a report to be provided. Therefore, the landlord was not at fault for not completing the works at that time.
Following this appointment, the landlord noted it made internal contact regarding this job. However, there is no record it made follow up contact with the resident. This would have been sensible to understand why he had declined the works and to try to progress them. Its failure to do so meant no further action was taken to resolve the gutter defects, despite it being aware of them. This amounts to maladministration and contributed to the overall delays in the gutters being repaired.
The resident reported gutter repairs again on 6 April 2024 and said he wanted them checked. There is no evidence the landlord did anything in response to this, until it inspected 4 months later, on 27 August 2024, when it identified further repairs. It then completed gutter repairs on 17 October 2024. This was 52 days later and so over the committed response time for routine repairs.
The delays in the landlord investigating and repairing the gutters amounts to maladministration and means there was water running down the external walls for extended periods. The resident says this has caused staining to the external walls, which he believes will never be resolved. We have made an order for the landlord to inspect the external walls to identify any staining and say what, if any, action it can take to resolve this. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and a timescale for any actions to be completed.
Further gutter repairs were identified during the landlord’s inspection in April 2025 and the subsequent structural survey the following month, which the landlord has confirmed were addressed in June 2025. It is not clear if these repairs were the same as ones previously identified or new ones. However, as there were at least 5 jobs for gutter repairs in less than 3 years (December 2022 and June 2025), this is a concern and suggests the inspections and works being completed were not sufficiently thorough.
The resident has said the structural surveyor who attended in May 2025 said the previous gutter repairs completed were not done correctly. We cannot say with certainty whether this is the case and on review of the inspection report, this only says the gutter installation was average and does not comment on subsequent repairs completed. Therefore, we cannot make any further comment in respect of this concern.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of gutter repairs. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge these or put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first stage 1 complaint the day it was received. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time, which said it would acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. It sent the stage 1 response in 11 working days. This was 1 day over the 10 working day committed response time, which was a minor delay and not a failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said, if a resident was unhappy with the outcome of their stage 1 complaint, they needed to let the landlord know within 20 working days. The resident did this as he replied to the first stage 1 response 19 working days later, on 17 November 2023, and expressed dissatisfaction. In reply to this, the landlord asked him to confirm if he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said if any part of the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it would be progressed to stage 2 of its procedure, unless an exclusion ground applied. While the resident did not specifically ask to escalate the first complaint to stage 2, he did express dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.
Therefore, in line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 without seeking further confirmation from the resident. Its failure to do so meant the complaint was not escalated, despite him telling the landlord he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 August 2024 and asked to escalate the first complaint to stage 2. The landlord told him it would need to log a new complaint as its complaints policy said he had 20 working days to reply if he was dissatisfied. As the resident’s request was over the 20 working day timescale, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to escalate the first complaint at that point, and said it needed to raise a new, second complaint. However, had it escalated the complaint as it should have done in November 2023, it may not have needed to raise a second complaint.
Before the landlord progressed a second complaint, it contacted the resident on 20 August 2024 to say it could only progress this if he did not want to pursue the disrepair claim. It advised if he still wanted to pursue that, it would not open or progress a complaint any further. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would not accept a complaint where legal proceedings had started and this was defined as where legal paperwork had been filed at court.
In this case, the resident’s disrepair claim had not been filed at court and was still in the pre-action protocol stage. Therefore, there was no reason why the landlord could not raise it as a complaint. The landlord’s advice to the resident was incorrect and in contravention of its complaints policy. This error resulted in a delay in the second stage 1 complaint being raised by around one month.
The landlord raised the second stage 1 complaint on 17 September 2024 and acknowledged it the same day. This was in line with the 5 working day committed timescale for complaint acknowledgements. It went on to send the second stage 1 response in 10 working days, which was in line with the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy.
The resident replied to the second stage 1 complaint on 8 October 2024. He expressed dissatisfaction with the response and asked the landlord to re–evaluate the matter. The landlord replied advising him to contact his solicitors about the disrepair claim. While the resident did not expressly ask to escalate the complaint, as previously stated, this should not stop the landlord from escalating the matter. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to escalate the complaint at that time and in contravention of its complaints policy.
It was only after our intervention in March 2025 that the landlord escalated the second complaint to stage 2, on 26 March 2025. It responded to this 2 working days later, which was in line with the 20 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses to the second complaint made no assessment of the issues and only referred to the disrepair claim. This was unreasonable and meant it did not assess its handling of the issues, which is the primary reason for the complaints process. This failure means the landlord’s complaints process had little or no impact in resolving the substantive issues. This was disappointing for the resident and caused him to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident’s complaint journey took 17 months to complete. This was significantly over the 1.5 months it should have taken and was an unreasonable delay. The resident incurred time and trouble to progress the complaint, and it was only with our intervention that the complaint was escalated to stage 2. The landlord appeared confused in its handling of the second complaint alongside the disrepair claim, and at times offered incorrect advice and/or did not progress matters as it should have because of this. The landlord subsequently acknowledged this in its stage 2 response of 28 March 2025, and confirmed it had delivered staff training on this issue, which is positive.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the resident’s second complaint, apologised and offered £300 compensation. The compensation offered is reasonable and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to ‘put things right’ for the resident for all the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge failure in its handling of the first complaint, apologise or identify learning as a result of this. Therefore, it has not fully put things right and learnt from outcomes, in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principles; and so a finding of service failure is appropriate.
We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures in its handling of the first complaint and identify learning from this. It must confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident and us, including what actions it has/ will take to prevent similar failures happening in the future. We have also made an order for the landlord to pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered, if not done so.
The resident has said he is dissatisfied that the landlord declined to reimburse him postage costs incurred. He said he had paid for letters and photos to be sent via special delivery to report the repairs. The resident raised this as part of his first complaint and in the stage 1 response of 24 October 2023 the landlord agreed to reimburse him the postage costs and asked for receipts to show the amounts he had paid.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can pay compensation for quantifiable loss. In these circumstances residents are required to provide evidence of any costs to ensure the correct level of compensation is paid. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord asked for receipts as evidence of the postage costs incurred, so it could refund the exact amount. We have seen no evidence that the resident provided this to the landlord, therefore, it is reasonable that it has not paid compensation for this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. The resident’s reports of boiler faults.
  3. A flood in the living room.
  4. Leaks under the kitchen sink.
  5. Gutter repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Shared learning from this investigation in respect of the damp and mould with the relevant service area to identify any changes it can implement to avoid similar failures happening in the future. The landlord to confirm the outcome of this to us and the resident in writing.
2. Scheduled a follow up inspection with the resident for 3 months’ time to pro-actively review the condition of the property. This is to confirm whether the damp and mould has returned (in the bathroom and living room) and if any further actions are needed. The landlord to confirm the scheduled inspection date and time in writing to the resident.
3. Apologised to the resident for:
  1. Its handling of damp and mould.
  2. Its handling of his reports of boiler faults.
  3. The delay in it completing making good works following a flood in the living room.
  4. Its handling of leaks under the kitchen sink.
  5. Its handling of gutter repairs.
  6. Its handling of the resident’s first complaint.
4. Paid the resident £1,425 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for its handling of damp and mould.
  2. £175 for its handling of his reports of boiler faults.
  3. £100 for its handling of a flood in the living room.
  4. £200 for its handling of leaks under the kitchen sink.
  5. £250 for its handling of gutter repairs.
  6. £300 already offered for its complaint handling, if not done so.
5. Sent a gas engineer to the property to investigate and repair any radiators that are not working.
6. Inspected the external walls of the property to identify any staining and what, if any action it can take to resolve this. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and a timescale for any actions to be completed.
7. Identified learning from the failures in its handling of the resident’s first complaint. It must confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident and us, including what actions it has/ will take to prevent similar failures happening in the future.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord reviews how it records out of hour repair reports and actions taken to ensure these are accurate.