Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202406349)

Decision
Case ID	202406349
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

1. Following reports of a leak and damaged plaster that were recorded as resolved in 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom in August 2023. He also reported a leak from the roof in February 2024. The roof leak was repaired in March 2024, and the works to make good the bathroom were completed in October 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and damp and mould

6. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in the repairs being completed, and offered a level of compensation which reflects a significant impact on the resident. The remaining works were completed soon after the final response was issued.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. It was inappropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s first complaint as a compensation claim, as there were outstanding repairs which the resident wanted to be resolved. Once the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord could not evidence that it advised the resident that he could refer the complaint to our service, and we needed to request that the landlord take further action to exhaust its complaints procedure.

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 24 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026
3	Case Review order The landlord is to complete a case review of its complaint handling. The review must be completed by a senior member of its staff and a copy must be provided to us.  The review should include its record keeping (particularly in relation to its response when the resident said he was unhappy with the offer of compensation in March 2024), the wording of its complaints policy, and how it applied its complaints and compensation policies when deciding how to progress the complaint.	No later than 24 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should now pay the £700 compensation it offered for its handling of the leaks and damp and mould.
The landlord should carry out an inspection to check the quality of the plastering and painting works to the bathroom walls.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 February 2024	The resident raised the issues above with the landlord. At this point, there were outstanding repairs both for a roof leak, and for damage and damp and mould inside the property.
4 March 2024	The landlord issued a written response. It said that this was a response to a stage 1 complaint, and that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if he remained unhappy. This response said that: it confirmed that works to resolve the damp and mould had not been completed following the resident’s report in August 2023 repairs had been raised to plaster the bathroom, and to remove an old vent fan. An appointment date would be communicated to the resident once the landlord had it the resident had made a compensation request, and the landlord would discuss this once repairs had been completed
March to April 2024	The landlord followed up the above letter on 20 March 2024 by offering £500 compensation. The resident rejected this on the same day, and asked to speak to a member of staff at the landlord instead.   The resident then contacted the landlord again on 27 March 2024 to chase this phone call.   The landlord called the resident on 12 April 2024 to apologise that there was no update on these issues, and sent over a compensation claim form for the resident to complete and return.
19 April 2024	In an internal email regarding the resident’s compensation claim, a member of staff stated that if the resident remained unhappy he could contact HOS, on the grounds that he had made a formal complaint and was unhappy with the landlord’s final decision.
23 September 2024	After our service requested further information of the landlord on how this was progressing, it responded to say that it had been dealing with this as a compensation claim rather than a complaint, as the resident had requested this at the time.   We then contacted the landlord to ask that it raise a stage 1 complaint, and respond within 15 working days.
26 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said that: jobs for a leak and damaged plaster were both raised and completed in 2021 following this, the resident raised a job for damp and mould in the bathroom in August 2023. A mould wash was carried out in December 2023, but a surveyor was tasked to inspect damaged plaster a roof leak repair was raised on 8 February 2024, and completed on 14 March 2024 plastering works identified by the surveyor were raised in February 2024. After 3 appointments which were recorded as no-access, these works were completed on 24 September 2024 works to complete the making good of the walls by redecorating were booked in for 4 October 2024 the offer of compensation was increased to £700 to reflect considerable service failure        On the same day the landlord sent out an effective final response. This refused to review the complaint at stage 2, as it said that the resident was unhappy with its offer of £700, and was seeking £25,000 instead. It confirmed that this was not an amount it would offer through its complaint process, and gave referral rights to bring the complaint to HOS.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said that: while works related to the complaint were completed, he was not happy with the quality of what was done he disputed that he had not given access for 3 appointments to make good the bathroom- he said that 2 of these 3 appointments did not go ahead because a plumber (required to remove and then refit a cistern) had not attended at the same time as the plasterer he maintained that he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation

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 reports of leaks and damp and mould.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

8. We are aware that the resident said he had been reporting these repair issues to the landlord for several years before making the complaint, and that the landlord has records of works related to a leak being completed in 2021. We do not doubt that these historical reports occurred, but we expect residents to raise a complaint within a reasonable time of an issue becoming apparent. We are aware that the resident raised the complaint on 16 February 2024, following reports of these repair issues made in August 2023. Therefore we have considered in this investigation events from August 2023 onwards.

What we have considered

9. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for both roofing and plumbing repairs. It also explains that the landlord that it will make good any internal damage, including decorations, that arise out of its actions or omissions. Regarding timescales, it says that the landlord will attend to urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine works within 20 working days.
10. There were multiple delays in completing the works to make good the walls in the bathroom. From the resident’s report of 4 August 2023 it took 32 working days for an inspection to take place, and then a further 55 working days for a mould wash to be completed. In both cases this was outside of the landlord’s timescales for attending to routine repairs.
11. The landlord’s records describe works to resolve water ingress by renewing roof tiles as urgent, but its timescales of 5 working days were not met- it took 25 working days for this to be completed.
12. Once the leak had been resolved, and a surveyor had outlined works to make good the bathroom, it explained further delays as being a result of the resident not giving access for 3 separate appointments from May to August 2024. The resident disputed this, saying that 2 of these appointments could not go ahead because a plumber did not jointly attend with the plasterer. We have to go off the evidence we have to hand, and we do have evidence of 3 works orders from each of these dates which say that the resident did not give access, but we do not have evidence of the resident contacting the landlord to report otherwise. Therefore, we cannot find a failing with the landlord’s handling of the repairs at this point.
13. Repairs can require follow up appointments, parts and quotes. However, good customer service requires a landlord to keep in contact and provide updates on the progress of the work, and the reasons for delays. Outside of when the compensation claim was being considered between February and April 2024, and the stage 1 response in September 2024 there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated on the progress of these works.
14. The resident complained about the quality of plastering and painting works done by the landlord, and sent our service photos of these walls, saying that a member of the landlord’s staff had commented on this. We cannot see any evidence of a member of the landlord’s staff raising concerns with the quality of these works, nor of the resident raising this with the landlord at the time. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the bathroom walls to check this.
15. From the resident’s report in August 2023, it took a total of 14 months for the issues with damp and mould in the bathroom to be resolved. When responding to the complaint formally in September 2024, the landlord demonstrated learning when it acknowledged that there had been delays in these repairs being completed. The remaining decorations were completed soon after this response was issued. The landlord offered £700 compensation which we have found to be a sufficient form of redress. In line with our compensation guidance, this is consistent with a finding of maladministration by our service and reflects the severity of the impact this had on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

16. The landlord’s complaints policy gives its handling of repair issues as an example of something that could be considered through the complaints process. However, it also outlines examples of when the landlord might take an alternative action to logging a formal complaint. This includes claims for compensation- the landlord has clarified that this would fall under service failure in its compensation policy.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that, if a resident remains unhappy with the outcome of a compensation claim, they can then appeal this through its complaints procedure.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy gives examples of when the landlord might refuse to review a complaint at stage 2. One of these relates to a resident raising issues which are not within its powers to investigate, change or influence.
19. It was inappropriate for the landlord to deal with the resident’s first call of 16 February 2024 as a compensation claim rather than under its complaints process. The evidence submitted shows that repairs to both the bathroom walls and a roof leak into the bathroom were still outstanding as of this date. While the resident had made a claim for compensation, the landlord’s response of 4 March 2024 confirmed that plastering works to the bathroom were still outstanding, and that the resident wanted this to be investigated too. The landlord’s primary focus on compensation was too narrow as there were works which needed to be monitored to completion.
20. From the landlord’s written response of 4 March 2024 its approach became confusing. While it said that that this was being dealt with as a compensation claim rather than a complaint, this response says that the resident made a stage 1 complaint, and that if he remained unhappy, he could escalate the complaint to stage 2. We cannot see in the landlord’s compensation policy any description of a separate process which requires stage 1 and stage 2 written responses for compensation claims.
21. The resident confirmed he remained unhappy with the offer of £500 compensation made soon after, but there is no evidence that the landlord applied its compensation policy by then moving this through its complaints procedure. We cannot see that the landlord ever informed the resident in writing that its complaints procedure had been exhausted between March and April 2024, nor have we been provided with any call notes to confirm the resident was informed of this over the phone. This, in effect, prevented the resident from being able to refer the complaint to our service for a period of between 5 and 6 months.
22. Once our service had contacted the landlord in September 2024 and asked it to consider this under its complaints procedure, its decision not to review the complaint at stage 2 was acceptable. At this point, the only outstanding repair was decorating the new plaster in the bathroom, and the disparity between the level of compensation offered by the landlord and that sought by the resident can be understood as something the landlord did not have the power to change. It is appreciated that the resident was not delayed further from being able to bring the complaint to our service.
23. We have made a finding of maladministration. In addition to the learning order, and in line with our compensation guidance we have ordered £150 compensation to reflect the landlord’s handling of the complaint prior to our service requesting that it issue a stage 1 response in September 2024. During this time the way it applied its complaints and compensation policies, and its record keeping created clear difficulties for the resident in his efforts to progress the complaint.

Learning

24. We have asked the landlord to complete a learning review. The landlord failed to show that it had applied its complaints and compensation policies coherently. It also needs to review the wording of paragraph 14 of its complaints policy- namely the bullet point which says “Claims for compensation as these are addressed through the Compensation for Service Failure Policy”. This suggests that the landlord had a dedicated Compensation for Service Failure Policy, which later turned out to be misleading. The landlord needs to know why these failures occurred.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord could not send over a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which would have confirmed its repair responsibilities. It also could not provide any evidence that it advised the resident he could refer his compensation claim to our service earlier in 2024. While it is understandable that the call recordings from this time have not been retained, it is also reasonable to expect that the landlord would keep notes from these calls filed with the other documents relating to this claim.

Communication

26. Outside of its communication in relation to the compensation claim and complaint, it is clear the landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of repairs. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective system in place to keep residents regularly updated on the status of repairs to manage expectations.