We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202322067)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322067

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

30 April 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:
    1. Wet room repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 23 May 2016. The property is a 3-bed bungalow. Landlord records show that the resident’s husband is a wheelchair user and their two daughters are on the autism spectrum.
  2. On 14 September 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the wet room. The landlord said it would arrange an inspection but the resident had to chase this on 7 November 2022.
  3. On 17 November 2022, the resident reported a blocked toilet in the wet room. The landlord attended but was unable to resolve the problem. When reporting it, the resident said she was told that she would be contacted by a ventilation contractor but she had not heard from it. The landlord arranged an inspection by the contractor on 18 November 2022. The landlord received recommendations from the contractor on 12 December 2022.
  4. In February 2023, the landlord arranged to carry out works to repair the drainage/pipework at the property. The resident was temporarily moved from the property during these works. During the repairs, the resident made reports of poor workmanship and unprofessional behaviour. Issues with the quality of the repairs led to a delay in their completion. The resident was required to remain in temporary accommodation for longer than first proposed.   
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 March 2023 about the time taken to address the blocked toilet, damp and mould in the wet room. The complaint also referenced the quality of the works and faults with the management of their stay in a hotel.
  6. The landlord carried out further works in March and April 2023. On 22 May 2023, the landlord started works to replace the wet room. These works were completed in June 2023 but the resident raised further concerns about their quality. The landlord inspected the works and agreed that some were “unacceptable”.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 July 2023 and upheld the complaint. It agreed that its communication about the works and their quality could have been better. It offered compensation of £100 for the failings.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 August 2023. She said that the loss of use of the toilet had not been addressed in the landlord’s response and the offer of compensation was not sufficient.
  9. The landlord held a panel meeting for the stage 2 complaint and provided its response on 22 September 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint and increased its compensation payment to £750.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident distress. Aspects of the complaint relate to the impact of their living conditions on their health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

Wet room repairs

  1. There were several elements to this complaint but these were all linked to the wet room repairs. On this basis, each element has been addressed separately below.

Damp and Mould reports

  1. Within the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it says that when an inspection is required, it should complete it within 21 days.
  2. The resident first reported the damp and mould on 14 September 2022 and landlord records show that it would arrange an inspection. The landlord failed to act on this and the resident had to contact it again on 7 November 2022. This was 55 days after the landlord had acknowledged an inspection being required. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord – it did not act on the initial damp report so failed to meet its own timescales.
  3. Following the resident’s chaser, the landlord called and advised that it would be at least 2 weeks before it could attend. Given that it had already failed to act on the initial report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a priority. However, it did progress with a form of investigation at this stage, instructing a ventilation contractor to attend. This was a reasonable course of action given that it could rule out a possible cause of the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord received a report from the contractor on 12 December 2022 but took no action to progress the recommended actions. On 14 February 2023, the landlord made a further request for the ventilation contractor to attend. The contractor advised the landlord that it had done so previously but the landlord had not requested it carry out the recommended works. The landlord then authorised the works to be carried out. This demonstrates insufficient oversight of the initial request and a lack of awareness of its previous actions. This is another shortfall in service by the landlord which added an unnecessary delay to the completion of works identified to reduce the potential for damp and mould growth.
  5. In summary, the landlord did not treat the reports of damp and mould with the urgency it should have. It failed to take any action in response to the initial September 2022 report and the resident had to chase it. Rather than complete a survey or risk assessment of the damp and mould, it ordered a ventilation survey. Although this was a positive step to take, this could have led to other potential causes of damp and mould being missed. The landlord’s inaction during late 2022 to early 2023 was inappropriate and will have caused the resident uncertainty about how the landlord intended to resolve the matter.
  6. Given the significant wet room works carried out from February 2023 onwards would likely have remedied the damp and mould, it was reasonable that no further inspection was carried out afterwards. No further reports of damp and mould were recorded after the wet room replacement.  

Blocked Toilet

  1. It is not disputed that the household was left without a working toilet in the wet room for over 3 months between November 2022 and repairs in February 2023.
  2. Landlord records show the landlord took no action following a failed visit to unblock the drains on 18 November 2022. Notes from around the time of this visit mention a concern that there was a fault with drainage and the associated pipework.
  3. It is not clear when the landlord performed the CCTV inspection but it did not take any action on its findings until 1 February 2023. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord. It did not provide adequate oversight of the blocked toilet problem and the resident had to chase it before any meaningful action was taken.
  4. Although there was a second toilet in the property, the resident’s husband is a wheelchair user and the other toilet was not wheelchair accessible. This meant that while it was out of use, the resident’s husband faced significant struggles in using it. The resident reported that he could only access the other toilet by “crawling on his hands and knees”. This was an undignified way for the resident and her family to be treated which the resident noted as causing significant upset.

Drainage Works

  1. There was some confusion around the scope of works and whether the wet room would be replaced while the resident was temporarily moved. However, it is clear from landlord’s records that it wanted to be sure that the drainage issues had been resolved before completing a wet room replacement. This was a reasonable course of action by the landlord.
  2. When carrying out the drainage works in February 2023, the resident complained about the quality of repairs and the professionalism of the contractors. After returning to the property, the resident raised particular concern about a soil stack inspection. The landlord found that the contractor had not followed instructions and it identified “very poor workmanship” which had compromised the integrity of the soil stack.
  3. During these works, the contractors were also recorded on a video doorbell suggesting that they set fire to a skip at the property. The landlord noted a report of the contractors using unprofessional language. It is of concern that the landlord’s contractors displayed such behaviour and the poor quality works added to the delays the resident experienced while she was away from the property.
  4. The poor workmanship also led to further repair works being carried out to correct the initial works. This additional time meant that the household was unable to move back to the property in the timeframe initially proposed by the landlord.
  5. When she returned to her home, the resident was expressed further concern at the repairs completed. The landlord was made aware that some decoration works, and other small jobs, were incomplete. Given that the household had vacated the property to allow works to be completed, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not identify these outstanding repairs before they returned. This is another service failing by the landlord which demonstrates a continued lack of oversight of the required works.

Temporary move

  1. As the initial timeframe proposed for the drainage works was not adhered to, the resident agreed to stay in a hotel while the repairs were completed. However, following the initial stay, there was an occasion when the resident and her family were asked to leave the hotel. This was apparently because the landlord failed to update the booking correctly.
  2. It is not disputed by the landlord that it failed to adequately monitor the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation. This led to her having to contact it while sitting in her car with her family outside the accommodation, asking that it arrange extra time to the booking. This is another service failing which caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident and her family. This was particularly difficult for the resident and her family given their vulnerabilities. Overall, the landlord failed to appropriately manage the wet room works and the resident’s related stay in temporary accommodation during early 2023.

Wet room installation

  1. The landlord began works to replace the wet room on 22 May 2023. Its records show that the works were completed on 7 June 2023. However, on 12 July 2023, the resident spoke to the neighbourhood officer and reported that the works remained incomplete and questioned the quality of those that were complete. The resident reported to the landlord that the contractors advised that jobs were rushed due to pressure from management.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it attended the property and noted “it really is not acceptable how they have left it”. In its email to the contractor, the landlord pointed out “we all know it was never completed to a satisfactory standard in the first place”. The contractor attended again to arrange for corrective works and despite agreeing that works were rushed, they went on the blame the “number of days limited in the property”.
  3. In an email to the contractor, the landlord said “this isn’t the first time” it had received reports of rushed works and that “numerous jobs” had to be put right. This shows the landlord was aware of continued quality issues with its contractor. Despite this, it continued to use the contractor yet still neglected to maintain its own oversight of the repairs through post-inspections or pro-active contract management.
  4. Given the prior faults with the works done in February 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a different contractor. Alternatively, it could have monitored the works throughout and ensured their quality, particularly given the upheaval the family had already experienced.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord failed at each stage of addressing the resident’s concerns about the wet room. There were unnecessary delays between September 2022 and summer 2023. There was a lack of oversight of the initial reports of drainage issues and damp and mould. These delays caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident’s family.
  2. When the landlord completed the initial works early in 2023, their was a lack of professionalism by its contractors which contributed to a prolonged stay for the resident in temporary accommodation. The landlord failed to manage that stay, causing significant embarrassment and upset for the household when they were asked to leave the hotel. When they returned to the property, the works were still not completed to an acceptable standard, leading to a need for further repairs before the landlord agreed to replace the wet room.
  3. Despite the previous quality issues with its contractor, the landlord chose to use the same one again for the wet room replacement. Again, some works were not completed and the quality of those it did complete were found to be lacking. Although these were subsequently corrected by the landlord, those issues were avoidable.
  4. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered a compensation payment of £750. It detailed this payment as being £500 for the repair delays and the loss of use of the toilet and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the stay in temporary accommodation. Although it was positive for the landlord to acknowledge its faults, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this offer is not proportionate and the landlord failed to demonstrate sufficient learning. We have therefore made a severe maladministration finding.
  5. Given the upheaval caused to a vulnerable household over an extended period, including an unacceptable time where the resident’s husband did not have use of an accessible toilet and poor communications during the temporary stay away from the property, additional compensation is warranted. We have ordered an amount to reflect a series of significant failings by the landlord that had a severe long-term detrimental impact.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a complaint acknowledgment within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days at stage 1.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint until 19 April 2023. This was 31 working days after the resident raised it on 7 March 2023. The landlord said that it would provide a response to the complaint by 3 May 2023. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it updated the resident when this response was further delayed.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023, some 95 working days after the initial complaint was raised. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as the delay was unreasonable and the resident was not kept informed.
  4. When the landlord considered the stage 1 complaint, its focus was on the more recent issues that the resident experienced. This meant that the initial complaint the resident raised was not fully addressed at stage 1. The resident explained this within her escalation request. This was another service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not show a full understanding of the initial complaint, leaving the resident feeling that part of her concerns was ignored.
  5. The landlord provided a more thorough review at stage 2 of its complaint process. The resident was kept informed by the landlord of the delays in providing its response and it ensured that all of the resident’s points were addressed.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to manage the initial complaint in a timely manner. This initial complaint was not fully addressed, contributing to the need for a stage 2 investigation. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of wet room repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive from the landlord must provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,350 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its management of wet room repairs (this is inclusive of the £750 it already offered);
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint.
  3. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must conduct a case review to identify specific points of learning. The review should include, but is not limited to, the following:
    1. how it will improve its contract management processes to ensure that it pro-actively identifies, and puts right, poor quality repairs completed by its contractors;
    2. how it will ensure that vulnerable residents are supported while they are in temporary accommodation due to repairs at their main home.
  4. The landlord must produce a case review document that identifies lessons learned and how it will avoid similar failings occurring in future.
  5. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.