Fairhive Homes Limited (202512698)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat that the resident has occupied since 2009. The resident reported several repair issues at the property and brought a disrepair claim against the landlord in the county court. The resident has dyslexia and has made the landlord aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Disrepair claim.
   2. Concerns regarding the proposed boxing-in of exposed pipework.
   3. Reports of unannounced visits to his home.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s disrepair claim is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the proposed boxing-in of exposed pipework.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unannounced visits to his home.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Disrepair claim

4. We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters where a resident has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter as part of legal proceedings.

Concerns regarding the proposed boxing-in of exposed pipework

5. The landlord took reasonable steps to carry out the ceiling repairs and ultimately reinstated the ceiling at an appropriate height.

Unannounced visits to the resident’s home

6. Despite the resident raising concerns about unannounced visits in November 2024, the landlord carried out a further unannounced visit in December 2024. Additionally, the landlord did not offer an appropriate level of compensation in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in line with its policy, as it did not identify, record, or respond to several concerns raised between October and December 2024. This led to avoidable delay and confusion.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. When responding to our request for evidence for this investigation, the landlord provided us with details of a disrepair claim dated 18 July 2024 and a strike out order dated 12 November 2025. The disrepair claim was in relation to damp and mould in the property and the associated works. The resident asked us to investigate damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs regarding a partition wall and skirting board replacement.
9. We have not investigated the resident’s complaint as it is outside our jurisdiction. This is because the resident previously made a claim against the landlord about the subject matter of the complaint, and as such, had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. We also may not investigate complaints that we think are more suited for resolution through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

10. On 19 September 2024 the landlord contacted the resident regarding concerns he had raised about a ceiling repair in the hallway. The landlord followed up in writing on 26 September 2024, explaining that the ceiling might need to be removed and reinstated if repairs could not be completed with it in place. The landlord noted that the resident confirmed he did not wish to make a formal complaint and was satisfied with the proposed approach.
11. Case notes dated 15 November 2024 record that the landlord spoke with the resident about the ceiling works. The resident indicated he was happy with the progress and agreed the matter should be handled as a service request.
12. On 28 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction after contractors attended that day and began reinstating the ceiling at a lower height, which he felt posed a safety risk as he could hit his head. On 2 December 2024, the landlord and a contractor made an unannounced visit to discuss the ceiling height, but the resident asked them to leave.
13. The ceiling works were completed on an unspecified date, as this is not clearly recorded in the landlord’s notes. Photographic evidence provided by the landlord shows that the ceiling had varying heights in order to accommodate pipework and wiring. It was reasonable for the landlord to reinstate the ceiling on a like‑for‑like basis, which would not restrict the resident’s headroom in the room.
14. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 18 June 2025. It explained that during its visit on 12 June 2025, it noted the boxing‑in had been installed at ceiling height and that the resident confirmed he was satisfied with the result. The landlord therefore did not uphold the complaint. Its actions were reasonable, as the boxing‑in was required to cover exposed pipework and wiring. It also confirmed that the installation did not impact the resident’s head height and that he was satisfied with the completed works.

15. On 12 November 2024 the resident raised a complaint regarding an alleged unannounced visit by the landlord. Case notes indicate that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 7 November 2024 to discuss matters connected to his disrepair claim. However, it is unclear from the records whether this visit had been arranged in advance. This indicates a record keeping failure.
16. Further evidence shows that, on 2 December 2024, a contractor acting on the landlord’s behalf carried out an unannounced visit to the resident’s home. This caused the resident considerable distress, as the contractor’s account records that he asked them to leave.
17. Internal correspondence dated 16 December 2024 confirms that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns with the staff members involved. However, the findings of this investigation were not communicated to the resident in the stage 1 response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to review the circumstances surrounding the unannounced visits, it was unreasonable that it failed to address the issue at stage 1. Furthermore, despite the resident having raised concerns about unannounced visits on 12 November 2024, a further unannounced visit subsequently took place on 2 December 2024.
18. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 on 18 June 2025. In this response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a £25 decorating voucher. While this represented an attempt to put things right, the amount offered was not sufficient and did not align with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which sets out expectations for different levels of impact.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy states that low‑impact cases involve situations where a complaint is upheld but the inconvenience or distress caused is minimal. In contrast, medium‑impact cases arise where there is clear inconvenience and/or distress resulting from a service failure, or where repeated low‑impact failings accumulate to create a greater impact. Given the circumstances of this case, including repeated unannounced visits, the landlord’s offer did not reflect the appropriate level of compensation in line with its policy. Therefore we have awarded the resident £100 in compensation, which is also in line with our remedies guidance.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
21. The evidence shows that there was confusion regarding what complaints the resident was raising and when. On several occasions, the resident indicated that he did not wish to progress a complaint through the landlord’s complaints process, while also raising several complaints within a short period of time. This understandably caused confusion for the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord is responsible for thoroughly investigating the resident’s concerns and keeping accurate records to enable it to do so.
22. Between October and December 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding:
    1. His carpets being “ruined” due to a leaking radiator.
    2. Incorrect information being provided to his solicitor in relation to his disrepair claim.
    3. Unannounced visits.
    4. His complaints not being dealt with.
23. The landlord did not respond to these concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process, and only identified that it had missed them when reviewing its records on 15 May 2025. This is concerning, as on 16 December 2024, the resident raised a further complaint stating that his previous complaints had not been dealt with. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify and rectify its failure much earlier. Had the landlord’s records been clearer, it would have been able to identify the need to issue a stage 1 response. By addressing the complaints only at stage 2, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to escalate the matter through the full complaints process, leaving him with no option other than to bring the matter to this Service.
24. In its stage 2 response of 18 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged that some of the resident’s concerns had not been formally addressed under its complaints policy and apologised for the confusion. While the apology was appropriate, it did not sufficiently reflect the impact on the resident. Given the landlord had identified its failure—and that the complaints had remained outstanding since October 2024—it should have offered compensation in line with its policy. Although there had been confusion, the responsibility should not be placed on the resident to pursue matters he believed he had raised as formal complaints. This is especially significant given the resident’s dyslexia, which the landlord was aware of.
25. In summary, the landlord did not manage the resident’s complaints in accordance with its complaints policy. The failure to identify, record, and respond to several concerns raised between October and December 2024 resulted in avoidable delay and confusion. Although the landlord later acknowledged its oversight and offered an apology, it did not take sufficient steps to recognise the impact on the resident or to remedy the service failure. For example, it could have done so by offering compensation in line with its policy. The missed opportunities to address the issues earlier, particularly when the resident reiterated in December 2024 that his complaints had not been dealt with, further demonstrate shortcomings in record‑keeping and complaint handling. This contributed to unnecessary frustration for the resident and ultimately required the involvement of this Service.

Learning

26. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should ensure that all contacts from residents are logged promptly and accurately. Clear, chronological records would have enabled the landlord to identify that multiple complaints had been raised between October and December 2024, and to respond at the appropriate stage of its procedure. Consistent record‑keeping is essential to prevent complaints being overlooked or misclassified. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

28. When multiple issues are raised at different times, the landlord should actively confirm in writing what it understands the complaint to be and how it will be handled. This reduces the risk of misunderstanding and provides a clear reference point for both parties. The landlord may wish to refer to our Complaint Handling Code for guidance.