Golding Homes Limited (202342459)

Decision
Case ID	202342459
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Golding Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

The resident reported a leak affecting her bathroom around January 2023. She complained to her landlord in December 2023 that the leak remained outstanding and that the landlord had missed several repair appointments.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom
2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom

The landlord delayed in progressing and following up the repair to resolve the leak. The landlord also failed to offer proportionate redress in its complaint responses which recognises the failures in its handling of the leak.

The associated complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and time and trouble caused to the resident for its handling of the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom £150 previously offered in its stage 2 response of 28 February 2024 This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 10 April 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic
it has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

10 April 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows:

£400 for the distress and time and trouble caused to the resident for its handling of the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom
£150 previously offered in its stage 2 response of 28 February 2024

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

10 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The resident told us that she is disabled. It is unclear whether the landlord has updated its records to reflect this. As the repair guide says it prioritises repairs by considering vulnerabilities in the household, the landlord should consider contacting the resident to confirm her disability‑related needs and communication preferences and update its records so this information is clearly flagged and used when planning appointments or making future contact.

Our recommendations

The resident told us that she is disabled. It is unclear whether the landlord has updated its records to reflect this. As the repair guide says it prioritises repairs by considering vulnerabilities in the household, the landlord should consider contacting the resident to confirm her disability‑related needs and communication preferences and update its records so this information is clearly flagged and used when planning appointments or making future contact.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 December 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to complain that the engineer did not attend as promised. She said the late update at 1:04pm went against the landlord’s assurance that she would receive early communication.
3 January 2024	The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge the complaint, saying it aimed to investigate and contact the resident by 17 January 2024.
17 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it first attended the repair on 8 February 2023 and raised a follow‑on job for a multi trade operative it booked the follow‑on works for 8 March 2023, but the resident was not available, so it booked a new visit for 13 April 2023 at the April 2023 visit, the operative identified the materials needed and ordered them it booked the next appointment for 18 December 2023, but the operative with the materials was off sick it then booked another appointment for 31 January 2024 it apologised for the inconvenience caused it introduced an early 7am shift in the planning team and reminded operatives to communicate better, and it began manual checks to match the right operative to each job it offered £100 compensation for time and trouble
31 January 2024	The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the service she had received from it. She said the landlord promised it would resolve the repair that day, but at 1.04pm, the landlord had called her saying the engineer would not attend because he was ill. She said the landlord had previously assured her that it started earlier to prevent late cancellations, so she did not accept the short notice from the landlord. She asked for the complaint to move to the next stage.
1 February 2024	The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge the escalation. It said it would provide its response by 29 February 2024
28 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: the repair had taken a long time, and the landlord used different operatives because each one had different skills at stage 1, it introduced an early‑day planning system to warn residents sooner if an operative could not attend, and it said the system had mostly worked on the day in question, 5 operatives were off sick and the landlord had more emergency jobs that took priority the planners tried to move the job to another operative, but the original operative had the materials and was not available it booked a new appointment for that week and apologised for providing the update late because the repair was still outstanding and the resident had chased again, it increased the compensation to £150
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord kept letting her down after she first reported the bathroom leak. She said the landlord made many appointments that it cancelled at the last minute or did not attend, and she felt she was always chasing it for updates. She said the long delays left her frustrated because she reported the leak promptly and expected the landlord to keep to what it agreed. She said the landlord should fix the leak, make good the damage, and pay compensation for the time she spent chasing the repair and the many calls and emails she had made. The resident also informed us of her disability and said she has special needs.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the repair for the leak affecting the bathroom
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident has raised issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the bathroom redecoration works in her complaint of 28 December 2023. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we investigated

The landlord’s repairs guide says it prioritises repairs by considering several factors, including any vulnerabilities in the household. It categorises repairs as:
a. emergency repairs, which it aims to attend within 24 hours
b. urgent repairs, within 5 days
c. routine repairs, within 28 days
The landlord attended an out‑of‑hours emergency on 13 January 2023 for a leak affecting the bathroom. It found the leak at the roof cowl and drained the hose to stop the water. It also said it would require follow on works to refit the hose.
It is not clear when the landlord raised the follow-on works but it had noted the resident was available after 3:30pm as part of the information on the work. The landlord said it attended on 8 February 2023 but the resident was not in. This was 18 working days after it had attended the out of hours emergency.
We cannot see that the landlord took the resident’s availability into account when it booked these appointments. It is unclear if the resident was aware of these appointments.
The landlord said it attended again on 8 March 2023 and 13 April 2023, but there was no access on either date. The records show the landlord already knew the resident could only accept visits after 3:30pm
The landlord attended again on 18 April 2023 and repeated the same finding that the leak came from the roof cowl and still needed further work. The first visit in January 2023 had already identified this, so repeating the assessment instead of completing the repair did not move the job forward. This was unreasonable and not in line with the repair guide, which says repairs should be completed the first time where possible, and within 28 days. This also likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as the issue remained unresolved.
After that visit, the landlord said it booked an appointment for 5 June 2023, but it is unclear if it attended. It then arranged further appointments in December 2023 but could not attend because operatives were off sick. The records do not explain the long gap between April and December, and there is no clear evidence the landlord kept the resident updated during this period, even though she chased several times for progress. The lack of communication, unclear records and long, unexplained delays were unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s aim to complete repairs within 28 days
The landlord booked an appointment for 31 January 2024 but cancelled it on the same day because the operative was off sick and moved the visit to early February 2024. Given that sickness was circumstances outside of its control, it was reasonable that the landlord rearranged the appointment for the earliest opportunity which was 5 working days later.
The landlord attended on 7 February 2024, but the resident was not in. It is unclear whether it had agreed the appointment with the resident in advance. On the day, it noted the resident could only accept visits after 3:30pm. The landlord was already aware. The record does not show how the appointment was arranged or whether the resident was informed. This lack of clear communication and record keeping was unreasonable and showed a failing in how the landlord managed the repair.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 28 February 2024 that the repair took time because it needed operatives with different skills. While this was a fair explanation, it did not evidence that it considered the failure to plan follow-on works or that it took into consideration the resident’s request for appointments at a certain time. The landlord’s record showed missed opportunities to plan follow‑on works and weak access planning despite knowing the resident’s after‑3:30pm availability. This was not reasonable.
The stage 2 response said it would attend that week, which it did on 29 February 2024 which was reasonable. It carried out works to shorten and modify the ducting and noted the roof vent slate had come away from its fitting. However, the landlord did not resolve the leak until August 2024. We note it attended to inspect and rectify the issue between February and August. While the complexity of the repair meant the repair would take longer that the routine timeframe of 28 days, the total length of time to resolve was unreasonable and unexplained. Furthermore, it failed to evidence that it considered the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord did not provide a clear explanation as to why it repeatedly failed to complete the repair for the leak and investigations that it identified. The evidence suggests the landlord did not have an effective and robust system in place to track and monitor repairs. There is no evidence the landlord sought to learn from its failings in this case, which would have been appropriate.
The complaint gave the landlord a chance to put things right under our Dispute Resolution Principles. We do not consider the compensation offer of £150 proportionate for the distress and inconveniences caused by its handling of the leak. By the stage 2 response in February 2024, the repair had been outstanding for about 12 months. We have ordered additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge both stages within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
On 28 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint and the landlord acknowledged this on 3 January 2024, 3 working days later, in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2024, 10 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2024 to escalate the complaint and the landlord acknowledged this on 1 February 2024, the next working day. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 28 February 2024, 19 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

This case demonstrated that the landlord did not have strong oversight of the repair. The long gaps in the timeline, unclear planning, and lack of timely follow‑up show the need for better monitoring and ownership of outstanding work. A clearer process for rebooking, chasing materials and checking progress would help prevent repairs from drifting significantly beyond the 28‑day target.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider whether its systems are sufficient to enable it to facilitate resident’s appointment requests.

Communication

The landlord should consider confirming appointments with residents through alternative contact methods, such as text messages or phone calls, especially where access needs or communication barriers exist. The landlord may already have these options in place, but it is unclear whether it used them in this case. Better use of these tools would have supported clearer communication, reduced missed appointments and improved the resident’s experience.