Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Halton Housing (202408957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408957

Halton Housing

24 October 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. Flooring repairs.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. Door repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house. For context, the resident has started proceedings for a disrepair claim on a number of occasions. However, there is no evidence a claim has gone before a court.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 March 2024 (Complaint reference 48762). She said she wanted repairs completing, and the issues dated back 4 years. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2024. A copy of the response was not provided to us, but the resident requested to escalate the complaint the next day. She said:
    1. £200 compensation for the flooring was unsatisfactory as she had paid over £600 for it.
    2. £50 compensation for the inconvenience was “an insult.”

The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate on 18 March 2024. But said as part of the stage 2 process, a complaint review meeting would need to take place. It was unclear if the meeting took place. However, comments in following complaint responses suggest a stage 2 response was issued and the resident was told the landlord would replace flooring in the hall, stairs and landing.

  1. It was not clear whether/when the landlord said it would replace the resident’s bathroom flooring. However, the resident raised a second formal complaint on 12 June 2024. She said:
    1. There was damp in the dining room.
    2. She was waiting for flooring repairs in the kitchen, bathroom, hall and stairs.
    3. Someone had been to measure the flooring but told her they could not complete the repairs.
    4. She had been signed off work with stress.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 response (COM24061365) on 4 July 2024, where it upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. No asbestos was found in the kitchen floor tiles. The report was sent to its repairs team to arrange the repairs, but the work was not scheduled in.
    2. It had arranged kitchen floor repairs for 15 July 2024.
    3. It sincerely apologised for the delayed work.
    4. It offered £50 compensation for the delay and lack of communication.
    5. It had identified learning that when reports are completed, it must include management to ensure repairs are scheduled and completed promptly.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint over the phone on 10 July 2024 as she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response (COM24061365), where it upheld the complaint, on 7 August 2024. It said:
    1. There were delays receiving the asbestos report, which led to delays booking the kitchen flooring work.
    2. It apologised that flooring work offered in the previous stage 2 complaint (48762) regarding carpets to the hall, stairs and landing had not been completed. It said this had been chased.
    3. It wanted to increase the compensation from £50 to £600 in recognition of the time, trouble and impact this had.
    4. The resident’s complaint had highlighted the importance of clear communication between the landlord and its contractors.
  4. On 11 September 2024 the resident emailed us and said:
    1. She had received a complaint response but it did not mention the bathroom flooring or damp in the dining room.
    2. Her kitchen floor had been repaired.
    3. Flooring work to the bathroom, hall, and stairs had not been completed.

She emailed again on 24 October 2024 and said the work was still outstanding.

  1. The resident called us on 5 November 2024 and said the dining room was still affected by damp and her vinyl flooring in the bathroom, hall and stairs had been damaged by damp in the property.  
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 February 2025. She said:
    1. The dining room damp was still outstanding.
    2. The flooring work for the bathroom, hall and stairs was outstanding.
    3. Some of the repairs were raised in 2021.
    4. She had applied to the courts to take action.

She then raised a third formal complaint in relation to outstanding repairs from the previous stage 2 complaint response ten days later.

  1. The landlord sent its third stage 1 response (COM25022216), in which it upheld the complaint, on 27 February 2025. It said:
    1. It apologised for the length of time the resident had waited and the inconvenience caused.
    2. Work to address the damp was raised on 15 January 2025 and completed on 18 February 2025. A surveyor had also visited on 13 February 2025 and raised follow-on work for the plaster to be hacked off and renewed.
    3. Flooring work was raised on 7 August 2024 but was still outstanding. It rearranged this for 25 March 2025.
    4. It offered £100 additional compensation made up of:
      1. £75 for the length of time taken to complete repairs.
      2. £25 for lack of communication.

This was subsequently increased to £300.

  1. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 6 March 2025 as she did not agree with the compensation offered. As noted above, the landlord offered to increase the compensation to £300, however the resident did not accept. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response (COM25022216) on 9 April 2025. It said:
    1. A plastering repair appointment was scheduled for 15 April 2025 to address the damp in the dining room. The window had also been re-sealed as the surveyor thought the wet plaster was caused by the window. Work to renew affected plasterwork had been raised.
    2.  It apologised for the delays in relation to the flooring and said:
      1. It acknowledged it agreed to replace the hall, stairs and landing flooring. It obtained and approved a quote, but the work remained outstanding.
      2. There was a waterfall design on the stair risers which the flooring contractor would either need to cover or remove. As the resident did not want this to happen, a compromise would need to be reached. Or the landlord could replace the hall and landing areas only. It asked the resident to contact the flooring contractor.
      3. It would replace the bathroom floor if the resident agreed to have the landlord’s standard non-slip flooring installed after the offer to replace the flooring was made by its surveyor. It scheduled the bathroom flooring work for 6 May 2025 but said the resident could cancel or reschedule.
    3. The £300 compensation offered for delays replacing the flooring was sufficient.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident contacted us on 11 October 2025 and said:
    1. The damp issue was resolved.
    2. The flooring work was still not completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns and complaints about other issues with the property including with the driveway, asbestos, kitchen and stairs. The resident said the driveway, asbestos and kitchen flooring issues had since been resolved so did not want those issues investigating. The landlord commented on the stairs issue in its stage 2 complaint response for COM25022216. However, there was no evidence this was raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve the issue. Therefore, the stairs are not considered in this investigation.
  2. The scope of this investigation will start from 1 year prior to the first complaint, 7 March 2023, up to the landlord’s final stage 2 response.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (March 2022) says:
    1. These are emergency, urgent repairs, non emergency repairs and planned works. It sets a target of 20 working days for non emergency repairs. It says that it will offer appointments for repairs through agreement with the resident.
    2. The policy says that the landlord will cancel repair orders where a resident refuses access on 2 separate occasions.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy (April 2025) issue says:
    1. Emergency repairs should be responded to within 4 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs: Non-emergency but time-sensitive (e.g. leaks) does not have a timeframe.
    3. Non-emergency repairs should be appointed within 20 working days.
    4. Planned works should be scheduled within 54 working days.

Flooring repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
    1. Resident’s are responsible for the repair or replacement of anything they have installed or fit.
    2. Resident’s are responsible for decoration of their homes.
  2. The details from the first complaint are unclear. So it is not possible to say whether the £250 compensation offer was reasonable. It was also unclear whether a stage 2 complaint response was issued.
  3. However, the evidence suggests the stage 2 response was issued and the offer was made to replace the resident’s flooring. This is because the landlord’s repair records showed it raised a work order to replace the flooring in the hall, stairs and landing on 16 April 2024 around the time a stage 2 response would have been issued. A contractor visited to measure the floor, which was positive and showed the landlord was trying to resolve the situation. However, there was no evidence any further action was taken in the following 2 months. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s lack of action and failure to follow up with either the resident or the contractor led to the second complaint.
  4. After the second stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s repair records showed it raised a work order for the flooring the same day. However, the work order only referred to the kitchen flooring, which was a failing because the resident had complained about delayed flooring repairs in the kitchen, bathroom, hall and stairs. The landlord should either have followed up the work order raised 16 April 2024 to replace the hall, stairs and landing or raised a new work order. There was no evidence it did so, which a failing.
  5. The landlord’s second stage 2 response said it had chased its contractor in relation to the flooring. However, no evidence of this was provided to us. So it was unclear whether it did so, or what the outcome was. The landlord’s repair records show 2 further work orders raised in relation to flooring. However, both were for the kitchen. This was second missed opportunity to follow-up or raise a new work order for the replacement flooring for the hall, stairs and landing.
  6. There was no evidence of any further action for almost 5 months when the resident said she was taking legal action in relation to the outstanding repairs on 7 February 2025. The landlord promptly raised an inspection and noted the flooring in bathroom, hall, and stairs was still not replaced. However, there was no evidence any flooring repairs were raised, which led to the third complaint.
  7. The evidence suggests the landlord’s repair records for the kitchen flooring, and in general, caused confusion.
    1. 319618340 was raised 4 July 2024 after the stage 1 response (COM24061365). But this was cancelled on 31 July 2024 as a duplicate.
    2. 319624436 was raised on 7 August 2024 after the stage 2 complaint response (COM24061365). But this was cancelled as raised in error the same day.
    3. 319624503 was raised on 7 August 2024 after the stage 2 complaint response (COM24061365). But this was cancelled as a duplicate on 24 March 2025.

None of the repairs show when the kitchen flooring work was completed. However, we know it was completed by 11 September 2024. The landlord’s third stage 1 response said it had re-scheduled flooring work raised on 7 August 2024. However, this was the kitchen flooring work order that had already been completed by this point. Hence why the repair was cancelled as a duplicate the day before the contractors were due to attend. This caused further delays with flooring repairs to the bathroom, hall, and stairs.

  1. The evidence showed the landlord chased its flooring contractor on 4 April 2025 to ask if it had re-quoted for new floors, following a visit “approximately 9 months ago.” However, this was 5 weeks after the third stage 1 response, which was a further delay.
  2. The third stage 2 response had sufficient detail to explain the landlord’s position regarding the flooring. The landlord’s repair records showed the landlord raised the flooring repair the same day of the stage 2 response, which was positive. However, again it did not mention the hall, stairs and landing flooring. The landlord’s records showed the contractor attended on 6 May 2025, but the resident refused the work. It was unclear whether the resident contacted the flooring contractor to arrange a compromise with regard to the waterfall design on the stairs.
  3. Since the landlord offered to replace the resident’s flooring, it has:
    1. Failed to follow-up with its contractor after the visit to measure the floor around June 2024, which led to a second formal complaint.
    2. Missed opportunities to raise a separate work order for the hall, stairs and landing flooring:
      1. After the second formal complaint was raised in June 2024.
      2. After the stage 1 response in July 2024.
      3. After the stage 2 response in August 2024.
      4. After the surveyor visit on 10 February 2025.
      5. After the third stage 1 response in February 2025.
    3. Failed to follow-up the hall, stairs and landing flooring work:
      1. Between around 16 April 2024 (when the hall, stairs and landing work order was raised) and 12 June 2024 when the second complaint was raised.
      2. After the stage 2 response sent 7 August 2024 when it said it had chased the contractor which led to the third formal complaint 6 months later.
      3. Between 17 February 2025 (after the third stage 1 response was sent) and 4 April 2025, a period of 5 weeks.
    4. This lack of ownership and action amounts to a period of delays of at least 9 months. Further to this, there is no evidence the landlord has followed up between the third stage 2 response to this day, a period of another 6 months.
  4. While there are clear failings in the landlord’s handling of flooring repairs, it is noted the landlord has offered compensation of at least £1,150 across the 3 complaints. The landlord is also not obligated to replace the resident’s flooring. However, it has accepted it has offered to do so, which was reasonable. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the complaint (and the identified failings) was appropriate and proportionate, so a finding is made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repair records show a survey requested on 18 September 2023 following a report of damp. This was completed 4 days later, which was prompt.
  2. It was unclear whether the resident specifically mentioned damp and mould in first complaint to the landlord. However, she said there was damp and mould in the dining room in her second formal complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint sent on 4 July 2024 said it had “checked where outstanding works were up to” but did not specifically mention the damp and mould. This was a missed opportunity to follow-up or raise a separate work order to address the damp and mould. The landlord’s stage 2 response sent 7 August 2024 also failed to mention the damp and mould. This was a second missed opportunity to raise a separate work order, which was a further failing.
  3. There was no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to the reports of damp from 12 June 2024 to 15 January 2025, when it raised a work order for a damaged exterior wall. It was unclear whether this repair was prompted by contact from us. The resident chased the landlord on 7 February 2025. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain the action it was taking regarding the damp and mould. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to send a surveyor, and it completed some repairs which have addressed the mould. This was positive. It was also reasonable for the landlord to use the third formal complaint to explain the steps it was taking to address the damp.
  4. Again, the landlord’s repair records in relation to damp are confusing with multiple repairs raised which show as cancelled or withdrawn. It was unclear when the damp issue was resolved for the resident. Overall, the evidence showed the landlord:
    1. Took no action for at least 6 months between June and January 2025.
    2. Was poor in its communication with the resident.
  5. Overall, the landlord made some attempt to put things right. It offered £300 compensation for the communication and delays with repairs. However, it did not break down how much of this was for the damp. In this case, the compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is because the full £300 is needed to make up for the failings with the flooring. There was therefore maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. A further order of £250 compensation is made.

Door repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair log showed it raised a repair the for a faulty external door on 13 March 2024. It completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe on 15 April 2024, which was reasonable.
  2. The resident raised concerns with the front and back doors in emails to us in September and October 2024. However, it was unclear if the landlord was made aware until a repair was raised for a faulty handle to the back door on 11 November 2024. The landlord completed repairs 2 days later, which was prompt.
  3. After the resident raised the third formal complaint in February 2025, the landlord raised another work order for the doors on 27 February 2025. The repair records said the landlord visited on 20 March 2025, however there was no access. The work order was re-raised on 27 March 2025. The landlord visited within a reasonable timeframe on 22 April 2025 and inspected the doors.
  4. Overall, there was no evidence the landlord acted unreasonably responding to the resident’s request for door repairs. There was therefore no maladministration. 

Summary

  1. In summary, the resident should not have had to raise 3 separate complaints, contact us, or threaten another disrepair claim to get repairs completed at her property. This has caused her significant distress and inconvenience. The evidence also showed the landlord’s repair records have caused confusion and contributed to repair delays.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says:
    1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days of that.
    2. If all or part the complaint is not resolved residents can request a review. If the landlord is unable to review the complaint, it will clearly explain the reasons why. If it is able to review the complaint, it will send a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
  2. It was positive that the landlord identified learning in its complaint responses of July and August 2024. However, it is important identified learning is acted upon.
  3. We acknowledge the landlord was prompt in sending its complaint responses, which was positive. However, there were issues across all the responses.
    1.  Complaint reference 48762
      1. Although the complaints handling code was not statutory at the time, the requirement to have a meeting before escalation to stage 2 was an unnecessary step which could delay or prevent residents from bringing the complaint to us.
      2. It was unclear whether a stage 2 response was sent.
    2. Complaint reference COM24061365
      1. The stage 1 response letter sent July 2024 was sent outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe. It did not mention the hall, stairs and landing complaint point, or the damp and mould complaint point. It also gave 2 complaint references (COM24061365 and COM23101074). This caused confusion as the resident used the incorrect reference when contacting us.
      2. The stage 2 response letter also failed to mention damp and mould and bathroom flooring.
    3. Complaint reference COM25022216
      1. While it was positive the landlord offered to increase the compensation from £100 to £300, this should have been done as part of the complaint escalation.
  4. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of a further £250 is made to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. The landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of flooring repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of door repairs.
  4. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £500 which made up of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the reports of damp and mould.
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the complaint.
    3. Contact the resident and provide its position in relation to the outstanding flooring repairs. An action plan should be agreed with the resident as to when the flooring repairs will be completed. If a compromise cannot be agreed in relation to the resident’s waterfall design on the stairs, the landlord is entitled to retract its offer to replace the stairs flooring.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should amend its April 2025 repairs policy to set out when resident’s can expect urgent repairs to be completed.
  2. The landlord should consider whether it should amend its complaint handling policy to bring it in line with the statutory complaint handling code sections 6.10 to 6.12.
  3. The landlord should consider changes that could be made to streamline its repair records.