From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

ForHousing Limited (202415730)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415730

ForHousing Ltd

11 September 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. Response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs to her property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 5 December 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The landlord has said it did not have any vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems, at the time of her complaint. The resident has told us that she has mental health vulnerabilities due to anxiety.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 January 2024. She told it that plaster had fallen from her walls when she had removed wallpaper, her chimney breast was wet, and she could not move into the property until it repaired the issues.
  3. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 10 January 2024 and raised repairs on 26 January 2024, as the plaster on the walls in multiple rooms had blown. Its records show it needed to complete plastering repairs to the hallway, landing, bathroom, chimney breast, kitchen and 2 of the bedrooms.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 February 2024. She said she wanted it to raise a complaint as it had told her that it would not be fitting a new bathroom in her property, when it had previously said it would do this.
  5. On 28 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to raise a complaint. She was unhappy that she had not been able to move into the property as it had not completed all the plastering works and told it she was “sofa surfing” as a result.
  6. The landlord conducted a damp survey at the resident’s property on 11 April 2024. It found there was rising damp and bridging was needed to all 3 sides of the chimney breast.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 15 April 2024. It apologised for the time it had taken to complete plastering work to her property and said:
    1. It had inspected her property on 11 April 2024. Following this it had booked plastering repair work for 8 May 2024 and plumbing repairs for between 8 May and 13 May 2024.
    2. It would monitor her complaint until it had completed the repairs to her property.
    3. It offered her £250 compensation due to the time it had taken to complete its repair works.
  8. On 9 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She asked it to escalate her complaint, as the repair work it was doing was not what it had agreed to. She also wanted it to refund her the rent she had paid it, for a property she was not living at.
  9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024. It said:
    1. It had reviewed its evidence and voids photos and found that the resident’s property was habitable when she signed her tenancy agreement.
    2. It found it completed plastering repair work within its target dates and there was no failure found on the time it had taken to complete these.
    3. It did not uphold her request for compensation due to the costs she had entailed in plastering the stairway at her property.
    4. It did not uphold her request for it to refund the rent she had paid whilst not living at the property, as its voids evidence showed it was habitable when she signed her tenancy agreement.
    5. It had visited her property on 10 July 2024 and found it needed to complete further plastering and joinery works. It had booked repair jobs for these issues for 12 August and 15 August 2024 respectively.

Post internal complaint

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 8 February 2025. She said that the repair issues she had raised with the landlord were still ongoing and it had impacted on her mental health and left her feeling suicidal.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the situation has impacted her health. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord considered the resident’s health conditions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs to her property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time.’ This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The landlord’s repairs procedure says it will carry out a minimum of 20% handover checks before a property is ready to let. Subject to a satisfactory handover of the completed void repair works, its surveyor will sign the void handover form and the contractor’s handover sheet which will be stored by the contractor on its systems.
  3. The landlord’s repairs procedure says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs with 30 working days.
  4. The landlord’s records include void handover photographs from 30 November 2023. This indicates the property was subject to handover checks. However, there is no record that it completed, or that its surveyor signed a void handover form, to confirm it had completed all repair works to the property. It would have been reasonable to have done this to have recorded information about the condition of the property. This was a failure to follow its repairs procedure.
  5. The evidence shows the resident found that the plaster was falling away from the walls when she began removing wallpaper in her property, early in the tenancy. It would not have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have detected this before it let the property, as social landlords have limited resources which they need to use for the benefit of all their residents. The evidence shows that the resident chose not to stay at the property while the landlord completed plastering works.
  6. The landlord raised a repair job to the blown plaster on 8 January 2024, the day after the resident reported the issue to it. Although it visited her property on 10 January 2024, its records show its contractor sent the wrong trades person so only an inspection of the issue took place. There is no record that it apologised to the resident for this or told her what action it would take because of its error. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
  7. The landlord’s inspection on 10 January 2024 found it needed to replaster multiple rooms in her property. It then raised a repair job for plastering works on 26 January 2024. While there was a delay in raising the repair, it is unclear what the reason for this was. However, there is no record that it kept her informed on the progress of the repair. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so. This is likely to have caused her confusion and inconvenience as she chased it for answers on 18 January, 31 January, and 12 February 2024.
  8. After the landlord raised plastering works on 26 January 2024 it took it 7 visits to the resident’s property before it completed this on 15 March 2024. This was 5 working days beyond its published timeframe to complete routine repairs. However, its records show this was due to an increase in the quantity of work after it had started the job. While this was a reasonable cause of the delay, there is no record that it kept the resident informed. It would have been reasonable for it to have kept her updated and provided her with a new timeframe for completing its repairs.
  9. The landlord’s records show that the plastering works needed the removal and refitting of light switches and radiators in the property. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 March 2024 that it had not completed all its repair works to her property, including reinstating light switches and radiators. It is unclear why it did not do so as part of the plastering works it completed on 15 March 2024, and it was a further 39 working days before it resolved these issues on 13 May 2024. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion.
  10. It was positive that the landlord visited the resident’s property as part of its stage 2 investigation. Its stage 2 response said it did not find any service failures within the time taken to complete its plastering repairs to the resident’s property. However, having removed light switches and radiators to complete the plastering work, it is reasonable to conclude it should have reinstated these at completion. It did not do this or identify that this was a service failure, which we consider would have been reasonable. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
  11. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why it did not fully diagnose the issue at its first inspection in January 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to have told the resident the reasons for this. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase it for answers through its complaint’s procedure.
  12. Following the landlord’s damp survey, it raised repairs for bridging to the chimney, tanking to the wall and renewing the plaster. However, its records show its contractor cancelled these repairs with no reason given. There is no record that it told the resident of this or that it rearranged these repairs, so it is unclear if they are still outstanding. This was a record keeping failure.
  13. The resident told the landlord in her complaint that she was “sofa surfing” because she felt she was unable to move into the property until it had completed its repair work. It visited the resident’s property to complete further routine plastering repair jobs in April, May and September 2024. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered resolving the issue with a greater urgency outside of its repair policy targets, for the benefit of the resident. This is likely to have caused the resident distress.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised to the resident for the time taken to resolve the issue, which was reasonable. It was positive that it arranged to monitor the plastering repairs it raised at this point and contacted her on 12 June 2024 to check if she was happy with its repair work.
  15. After the landlord was unable to resolve the issue at its first visit, there is no record that it considered whether it needed to provide the resident with temporary housing. It knew she had 2 children and was “sofa surfing” at this point. It is unclear if its approach would have been different had she been living at the property. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have discussed the resident’s housing situation further and explained to her why it felt it did not need to offer her temporary housing. This is likely to have caused the resident distress.
  16. When the resident raised her complaint, she told the landlord the issue was impacting on her mental health. She also told us that the issue had left her feeling “suicidal.” However, there is no record that it sought further details from her about this or considered this in its response. It would have been reasonable to have done this, so it could consider if there was any support it was able to offer her. Its failure to do so is likely to have impacted on the landlord and tenant relationship.
  17. The evidence shows the separate plastering works needed to the property were extensive. These were 3 separate jobs that the landlord identified over the course of 6 months, that it took to complete the repairs. As it was aware that the property was empty during this 6-month period it should have considered utilising the time the property was empty to fully diagnose the issue and prioritise the repairs, to minimise the disruption to the resident. The resident did not move into the property until around November 2024. Regardless of this the landlord has not demonstrated it followed its repair obligations set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair the issues within a reasonable amount of time.
  18. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it did not appropriately consider the distress the situation had caused her. It also missed opportunities to take pro-active steps to resolve the issue. While the £250 compensation the landlord offered the resident went some way to address its failures, we do not consider this was proportionate as its complaint responses did not identify all the failures we have found.
  19. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs to her property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation in addition to the £250 set out in its stage 1 complaint response.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It says it will not consider initial service requests as a complaint and will provide customers with its reason for this.
  2. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it will award a fixed amount of compensation where there is a total loss of use of rooms in a property, for unreasonable periods.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 February 2024. She wanted to raise a complaint about it telling her it would not be fitting a new bathroom. However, there is no record that the landlord responded to the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so, even if this were to tell her it considered this to be a service request. This was a failure to follow its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord’s sent the resident its stage 2 response 24 working days beyond its published timeframe to respond within 20 working days. However, it did not apologise for this or explain the reasons for the delay. This is likely to have caused the resident frustration and was a failure to follow its complaints policy.
  5. Unlike its stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not provide the resident with an apology for the delay or inconvenience it caused her. It was aware that it had not resolved the plastering issue as it raised further repair jobs as part of its response. It would have been reasonable for it to have apologised to her as this was a further inconvenience she had to endure. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident’s property was habitable at the time her tenancy started. Therefore, it refused her request for it to refund the rent she had paid it while she was not living at the property. It was reasonable that it used its voids evidence and refused her request from when her tenancy started until she reported the issue. However, as it found that multiple rooms needed to be replastered it would have been reasonable to have also considered its repair records in deciding on this matter. Although, it is unclear from the evidence if there was a total loss of use of the rooms, it could have clearly explained to her if it felt the property was habitable during its repair works. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion and distress.
  7. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs to her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide an apology letter from a senior manager to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
    2. Pay £550 compensation directly to the resident, comprised of:
      1. £250 for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs to her property.
      2. £50 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
      3. £250 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response if it has not already paid this.
    3. Inspect the resident’s property and provide her and this Service with its position on the standard of plastering and associated repair work and what steps it can take to remedy her concerns about these.
    4. Review its decision not to refund the resident’s rent, in line with its compensation guidance and provide the resident and this Service with its findings. It should assess this from the date which she reported the plastering repair issue until the date she moved into the property.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord arranges complaints handling training for its staff to ensure its complaints policy is followed and suitable records kept.