Fairhive Homes Limited (202334997)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334997

Fairhive Homes Limited

31 March 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

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

1. Repairs in the rear extension.
2. Repairs in the bathroom.
3. Repairs to the heating system.
4. Damp and mould.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a three-bedroom house. The resident moved into the property through mutual exchange in July 2023. She lives in the property with her daughter.

3.             The landlord raised several work orders between July and October 2023 to:

1. Complete a damp and mould inspection and recommended follow-on works.
2. Survey the heating system.
3. Investigate the resident’s report of a leaking radiator.
4. Inspect the lino flooring following a leak.
5. Assess the water pressure and issue with the toilet flushing.
6. Inspect the extension ceiling as the resident reported it was bowing.
7. Inspect the bedroom radiator.
8. Investigate flooding in the back room.
9. Repair the cracked toilet cistern.

4.             The resident emailed the landlord on 28 December 2023. She said she reported water entering the extension in September 2023 and numerous contractors had confirmed the previous tenant did not construct the roof properly, so the drain needed to be diverted. She asked the landlord to assess the boiler as it was old and expensive to run. She was also waiting for the landlord to address the contractor’s recommendation for a new bathroom. She said the issues were impacting her mental health and disrupting her life.  Following correspondence from the resident, on 17 February 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.

5.             In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 1 March 2024, it upheld the complaint as it had completed repairs but not kept the resident updated. The previous tenant installed the extension, and it did not consider it a habitable part of the building. It could demolish the extension and reinstate the property back to the original state or carry out remedial works to the extension roof and garden. The resident chose to keep the extension. A contractor resolved the boiler issues on 21 February 2024. It inspected the bathroom on 23 February 2023 and agreed to replace the bath. It identified minor mould in July 2023, which it completed repairs to resolve, and it had not found mould on more recent inspections. It had arranged to resolve the damp in the outbuilding.

6.             The resident told the Service on 29 May 2024 that she had not received the stage 1 response. The landlord sent a copy of it to the resident on 20 June 2024 and acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. The landlord noted the resident’s desired outcome was a review of the compensation, to recognise the extension as part of the property, and to review its position that it would remove the extension at any time.

7.             The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024. It had satisfactorily completed all repairs previously raised. It had raised further repairs to repair a chip in the bath and to adjust the heating system. The mutual exchange inspection lacked information about the repair responsibility of the extension. The resident did not visit the property prior to the mutual exchange, which it recommends. It said it would not take responsibility for tenant home improvements but offered to remove the extension at no cost to the resident. As the resident chose to keep the extension, she would be responsible for any maintenance and repairs. It would only remove it without the resident’s consent if it became structurally unsafe and posed a risk. It offered £150 compensation for the time spent chasing communication and updates.

8.             On 31 January 2025 the landlord told the resident it should not have offered the property with the rear extension in place. It was unable to complete works to make the extension habitable. It said it could remove the extension and install a patio in its place. It offered 10% rent reimbursement from the beginning of the resident’s tenancy, which it rounded up to £1,500. If the property was unsuitable for the resident following the removal of the extension, it could move her. The timeframe would depend on available properties. It increased the compensation offer to £2,000 on 24 February 2025.

9.             The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied that the landlord did not identify the issues with the extension in the mutual exchange inspection. She said she spent hours chasing the repairs and the issues had impacted her health. She wanted compensation for the loss of use of the rooms and for the stress and anxiety caused by all the repair issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The rear extension

11.        The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building. The landlord’s website states that repairs to containable minor leaks, blocked and leaking gutters, and major cracks are essential repairs, which it will complete within 10 working days.

12.        In this case, the handling of the repairs has been complicated as the landlord identified that the previous tenant built the extension without authorisation. The mutual exchange policy states the landlord has the same repair responsibilities as to all other residents, unless the previous resident was responsible, then it passes onto the incoming resident.

13.        At the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord sent a letter to the resident which outlined the elements of the property she would be responsible for completing repairs to, as they were non-standard. This letter did not include any information about the extension. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to clearly explain its repair responsibilities. This may have impacted the resident’s decision on whether to accept the property.

14.        The landlord’s omission here raises questions about the effectiveness of its handover procedure for mutual exchanges. It was appropriate that the landlord addressed the issue in its final response. It would review the level of detail required in the end of tenancy inspection and provide refresher training. It therefore demonstrated that it learned from the outcome of the complaint and took steps to improve its service.

15.        The resident did not view the property, so she also missed an opportunity to raise any concerns before accepting the tenancy. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that residents are responsible for carrying out their own visual inspection before the exchange and ensuring the property is suitable.

16.        The landlord told the resident on 17 January 2024 that it did not consider the extension a habitable part of the building. It said it could demolish the extension and reinstate the property back to the original state or carry out remedial works to the extension roof and garden. The resident decided to proceed with the repairs. The landlord would not typically be responsible for any repairs to alterations made by residents, particularly if they have not been authorised. In this case, as the landlord did not correctly advise the resident of the repair responsibilities at the point of mutual exchange, it was reasonable that it agreed to complete repairs to stop the issues with the water ingress and bowing ceiling.

17.        The resident reported the extension ceiling was bowing on 19 September 2023. The landlord took the following actions:

1. It attended on 4 October 2023 and did not find any defects.
2. It reattended on 13 October 2023 following the resident reporting flooding. It noted the room was below ground level and a surveyor needed to attend.
3. It attended on 2 November 2023 and found the issue was “due to the elevation of the garden being excessively high and the exterior wall of the extension being butted up against the elevated ground.” It would also address the leaking roof.
4. On 1 December 2023 it repaired the flat roof around the drainpipe to stop the leak.
5. On 18 January 2024 it raised a work order to complete extensive repairs to remedy the issues.
6. It replaced and insulated the bowed ceiling, thermal boarded the walls, and renewed the skirting and the door on 30 April 2024.

18.        It therefore took 6 months to complete the works, which exceeded the 20-working day response timeframe.  However, there were some reasons for the delay. As the repairs were complex and required multiple inspections, it is understandable that it would require additional time. The landlord explained that following the external repairs, it needed to allow the interior to dry before it could continue with the repairs. The landlord told the resident on 4 March 2024 that works were due to start on 11 March 2024, but the weather caused delays. Although the extended period would have caused inconvenience to the resident, the delays were largely outside of the landlord’s control.

19.        In cases where the repairs cannot be completed within the repair’s timeframe for relevant reasons, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes if possible, keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. The landlord has recognised communication failings in its handling of the repairs, which it offered £150 compensation for at stage 2.

20.        Following the completion of the repairs, the landlord told the resident on 19 April 2024 that it would not maintain the structure as it was not a habitable part of the property. As it may cause further issues, it may need to remove the structure and reinstate the original condition at a later date. It would not recharge the resident for the works. It said it would only remove it if the resident agreed or if it became structurally unsafe and a risk to the resident.

21.        The resident reported the flooding in the extension recurred on 24 August 2024. The landlord subsequently attended several further appointments between August and October 2024, but did not resolve the issues in full. The landlord then sought advice on how to proceed with the matter.

22.        On 31 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that it should not have offered the property with the rear extension in place. As a result, the property was suffering from damp, and it had to remove the radiator to ensure the integrity of the heating system in the other parts of the house. It said it could demolish the extension and form a patio in its place, or the resident could move. It offered to reimburse the resident 10% of her rent for the 82 weeks she had lived in the property, which it calculated at £1156.94. It increased the offer to £2000 in February 2025, which it said was the maximum amount it could offer. It referred the resident to its insurer if she wanted to pursue further compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident could pursue a claim through its liability insurance if the resident thought it was negligent.

23.        To summarise, the landlord’s failure was not identifying the previous tenant had added an extension without permission, which was not structurally sound, or that this would be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. This meant it did not correctly inform the resident about the repair obligations, and she did not have the opportunity to properly assess whether the house was suitable for her needs. The resident was unable to use the rooms in the extension due to the water ingress issues for a prolonged period, which reduced the available space. Ultimately, as the extension now needs to be removed due to safety issues, the landlord has agreed to move the resident. It is acknowledged that this will also cause further disruption.

24.        In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards above £1000 are appropriate in cases where there has been a single significant failure which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s revised offer was therefore appropriate.

25.        The offer was substantially higher than the stage 2 compensation offer of £150, which solely focused on its communication failings in handling the repairs. The landlord told the Service that it had reviewed its final offer after receiving legal advice. It should have done this as part of the complaint investigation to prevent further delays in resolving the complaint. Although in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the final offer put things right, as there was an additional 6-month delay in reaching the resolution after the final response, we have found that there was a service failure in the handling of the complaint.

The bathroom

26.        The landlord’s guide to home repairs and maintenance states it is responsible for repairs to taps, sinks, wash basins, baths, toilets, bath panels, shower trays, shower doors (which it has fitted), and sealant to baths, basins, sinks and showers. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete general wear and tear repairs within 20 working days.

27.        The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 3 July 2023 explaining that the bathroom had a non-standard basin, which she was responsible for. It was reasonable that it clearly outlined repair responsibilities at the beginning of the tenancy. As the resident moved in by mutual exchange, she accepted the property ‘as seen’, which includes transference of any repairs the previous tenant was responsible for.

28.        The landlord told the resident on 14 July 2023 that it would not complete repairs to the shower as it did not install it. The landlord did not include this in the letter sent on 3 July 2023 so the resident would not have been aware at the beginning of the tenancy, which was inappropriate. It should have ensured the inspection at the beginning of the tenancy accurately identified all repairs the resident would be responsible for, so she could make an informed decision about accepting the property. As the shower forms part of the installations under s.11(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and because it did not highlight the resident was responsible for it, the landlord would be responsible for its repair moving forward. That is only fair in the circumstances. 

29.        It appears the resident wanted the landlord to change the shower, rather than complete any necessary repairs. The landlord’s repair responsibilities would not include changing the shower due to the resident’s preference.

30.        The landlord raised a work order on 19 September 2023 to replace the toilet pan and cistern and to repair the floor so the toilet could sit level. It inspected and measured the toilet on 6 October 2023 and completed the work on 26 October 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the toilet was not functioning during this time, so it should have been handled as a standard repair. The landlord slightly exceeded the repair response timeframe by 8 working days. However, given it had to order a replacement toilet this was not unreasonable.

31.        The resident reported on 4 December 2023 that the hot tap on the bath would not turn on. The landlord completed repairs the same day but was unable to resolve the issue in full. The repair records on 15 December 2023 state a contractor recommended to replace the bath.

32.        On 7 February 2024 the resident requested a new bathroom due to rust and various issues. The landlord attended on 23 February 2024 and noted it would replace the bath, but not the basin as it was not standard. The landlord raised a work order to replace the bath on 26 February 2024. It was unreasonable that it did not raise the work order when it initially identified it needed to replace the bath 2 months prior. This caused an unreasonable delay in completing the works.

33.        The contractor contacted the resident on 10 March 2024 and 2 April 2024 to arrange the appointment. On 19 April 2024 the landlord said the resident had not responded to its attempts to replace the bath as she was waiting for confirmation of when it would complete other bathroom works. It is understandable that the resident would want to limit the number of appointments to reduce disruption, however, the landlord is not accountable for these delays as it made reasonable attempts to arrange the appointment.

34.        The landlord told the resident it had raised works to aids and adaptations to install handrails. It would not remove the shower unless there was a health and safety issue, and it advised how the resident could request permission to change it herself. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the works it would complete and progress of the works in attempt to progress the bath replacement.

35.        It is unclear from the records provided when the landlord completed the works to replace the bath. It is important that landlords keep clear repair records to keep an accurate timeframe of the repairs. This Service is able to deduce that it was completed prior to 16 June 2024, nevertheless, as the resident reported the contractor chipped the bath when installing the grab rails. Therefore, there was not a significant delay. The landlord completed make good works on 16 July 2024.

36.        The resident said that the toilet does not have a sink. The landlord told the resident on 12 March 2024 that it may remove the partition wall between the bathroom and the toilet, if possible, when it refurbished the bathroom. The expected date was 2033. The resident was dissatisfied with this timeframe. Prior to a mutual exchange, the resident should have ensured the property met her needs and she was happy with the layout. As such, the landlord would not have to make any structural changes to the bathroom, as this would be an improvement not a repair issue.

37.        The landlord handled most of the bathroom repairs reasonably. However, it failed to recognise in its complaint response that it did not raise the work order to replace the bath within an appropriate timeframe, which delayed resolving the issue. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £100 compensation is warranted as there was a minor failure by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. The landlord should also ask the resident whether she wants to accept responsibility for the shower. If she does not, it should either accept responsibility for the existing shower or replace it with the standard shower that it would usually be responsible for. The landlord should discuss the matter with the resident before making a final decision.

The heating system

38.        The landlord’s repairs policy states that a loss of heating between 1 October and 31 March is an emergency repair which it will respond to within 24 hours. Loss of heating outside of these dates is an essential repair which it will respond to within 10 working days.

39.        The repair records show that the resident reported no heating on 14 July 2023 and the landlord changed the thermostat. It raised a work order the same day to carry out a breakdown service and remedy the boiler fault. There was a further appointment on 16 July 2023 to repair the heating. The landlord therefore reasonably handled the resident’s initial report as it acted in line with its repair timeframes. 

40.        On 7 August 2023 the resident reported that she had high energy bills as the boiler was expensive and old. She raised the issue again on 13 November 2023 and 28 December 2023 and asked the landlord to check the heating system. The landlord should have inspected the heating system for any faults, and confirmed whether it would take any action. There is no evidence it did, and so in our view, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and ensure it was fulfilling its repair obligations.

41.        The landlord raised a work order on 20 February 2024 to check the radiators and survey the heating system. This was 6 months after the resident initially reported the issue which was an unreasonable delay. The repair records show it then replaced the heating system on 18 April 2024, and it was working correctly. It is unclear whether the landlord decided to renew the heating system as a gesture of goodwill in attempt to reduce the resident’s heating costs or due to a fault which it was required to resolve. As such, the Service cannot determine whether it was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to replace the boiler.

42.        The landlord told the resident on 19 April 2024 that it installed the previous boiler in 2008. It said it was a condensing boiler, which is a more efficient boiler style. It therefore did not consider the boiler to be old or expensive to run and the expected lifecycle is approximately 15 years. While this was a reasonable explanation, it should have informed the resident earlier, given that she initially reported high energy bills 8 months prior. This would have better managed her expectations about its obligations and its reason for not replacing the heating system at an earlier date. As it failed to do so, the resident chased the issue numerous times.

43.        The landlord also explained that the extension was not sufficiently insulated so increased the overall heating costs. As it was not responsible for the extension and had offered to remove it, it would not be responsible for compensating for these costs.

44.        On 15 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to install a radiator in the extension, as the landlord removed it without telling her. She was unhappy with the landlord’s decision that the room was not habitable. The landlord would not be expected to install a radiator in a non-habitable area. However, it was inappropriate that it did not discuss the matter with the resident before removing it. It is clear that this caused distress and frustration to the resident. The landlord explained on 11 October 2024 that it removed the radiator as it would not be compliant with the new boiler. It should have confirmed this at an earlier date.

45.        There were significant delays in the landlord meaningfully addressing the resident’s concerns about the cost and efficiency of the heating system and dissatisfaction with it removing the extension radiator. While this may not have impacted the overall outcome, there was poor communication. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the identified failings. Due to the extent of the delays in addressing the resident’s concerns, it should pay her £200 compensation. It is important to note that this compensation is not intended to cover the heating costs as the landlord explained this was largely due to the extension, which it did not install.

Mould

46.        The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that “it will take “responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould expediently and effectively where they result from issues that require repair”. The repairs policy states that mould washes are essential repairs which it will complete within 10 working days.

47.        The resident reported damp and mould around the bedroom window frame on 3 July 2023. The landlord responded appropriately as it completed a damp and mould inspection on 5 July 2023. It noted there was no extractor fan, and it needed to remove the mould from the silicone in the bedroom windows. The repair records show it completed the work on 20 July 2023. It also provided advice to the resident on how to reduce damp and mould.

48.        The resident chased the damp and mould works on 26 October 2023 and the landlord stated it had booked an appointment for 1 November 2023. Although the repair records do not confirm the outcome of this appointment, in its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024, the landlord said it did not find any mould present in more recent inspections. The landlord therefore handled the reports of damp and mould appropriately and in line with its response timeframes.

49.        There were also damp issues within the extension. We have already assessed this above under the corresponding complaint section.

Determination

50.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the rear extension.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs.

52.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system.

53.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

54.        In addition to the £2150 compensation already offered, the landlord must pay the resident:

1. £100 for the delay in raising the work order to replace the bath.
2. £200 for the delay in addressing the resident’s reports of high energy costs and her concerns about it removing the extension radiator.

55.        The landlord should provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £2450 within 28 days of the date of this report.

56.        The landlord must write to the resident and confirm it will be responsible for the shower repairs moving forward. It must keep a copy of its letter on file. It must provide the Ombudsman with a copy within 28 days of the date of this determination.  

57.        The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

58.        The landlord should continue to support the resident with the process of finding a new property to move to.