Magna Housing Limited (202421874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421874

Magna Housing Limited

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the time of the complaint. The landlord was a housing association. The property was a 3-bedroom house. The resident assigned to the tenancy in September 2019 via a mutual exchange. The landlord’s records show there were vulnerabilities within the household.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 10 July 2024. The resident mentioned that the property was in poor condition when she moved in. And that she had been in dispute with the landlord ever since, as to who was responsible for carrying out repairs. She noted the landlord had agreed to complete some repairs but said it had not said when these repairs would be completed. The resident listed additional repairs that she felt the landlord ought to complete. And said the landlord’s delay in completing these repairs were putting her mutual exchange at risk.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. The landlord said it was sorry the resident had cause to complain. It said it had identified a number of repairs in May 2024, which had been scheduled for various dates in October 2024. It recognised the resident was trying to progress an exchange and said it would try to bring the repairs forward if it could. It reassured her that it had spoken to all of the parties in the mutual exchange process and that it was progressing the exchange.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2024 asking the landlord to clarify the stage 1 complaint outcome because she was unclear. The resident chased the landlord several times between 1 August 2024 and 8 August 2024 for a response.
The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 9 August 2024. The resident:
1. Said the landlord had not clarified the outcome of the stage 1 complaint and suggested its lack of communication was frustrating.
2. Accepted it had scheduled the outstanding repairs. But argued this did not make up for the 5 years of inconvenience living out of boxes, waiting for it to agree and arrange repairs so she could redecorate.
3. Asked the landlord to complete the repairs so she could progress the exchange, store her belongings for the duration of the works, pay for a skip to remove garden waste left by the previous tenant, and compensate her for stress.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint. In summary, the landlord:
1. Accepted its stage 1 complaint response was not in line with its expected standards and that its subsequent communication had been unclear. It apologised for this and said it had asked its complaints manager to review what went wrong.
2. Agreed to store the resident’s belongings while it carried out the repairs, given the scope of the works.
3. Noted the resident had not raised concerns about waste in the garden as part of the original stage 1 complaint. But clarified it would not agree to pay for a skip, as the resident had not raised this issue before.
4. Listed all of the repairs it had scheduled for the completion, along with expected completion dates throughout October 2024. It confirmed these were the earliest dates it was able to offer.
5. Offered £250 compensation for the poor service received in its handling the matter of complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on or around 6 September 2024 suggesting the level of compensation it had offered was inadequate, considering the stress and anxiety caused by its failings. She provided evidence that its housing officer had been aware at the time of the exchange, of rubbish in the garden and insisted the landlord should pay for a skip. She explained that her child had additional needs and would not be able to cope with repairs being carried out around her.
The landlord emailed the resident later the same day. The landlord recognised that it had not taken all the circumstances of the case into consideration, for which it apologised. It said it was unable to bring the works forward with the resources it had available. But:
1. Agreed to put the resident and her family into temporary accommodation and to store her belongings while the works were being completed, given the vulnerabilities within the household.
2. Changed its position concerning paying for a skip, given the new evidence she had provided.
3. Said it would ask its complaints team to review the level of compensation offered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 September 2024 revising its offer of compensation to £2,500. This comprised:
1. £1,900 compensation, which represented a 68-week partial rent rebate.
2. £350 compensation for skip hire.
3. £250 compensation, in recognition of the poor service received by the resident, in relation to its handling the matter of complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2024 suggesting it was unreasonable that she should have to pay for a skip out of the compensation. The landlord responded the next day, agreeing to remove the rubbish at its own cost. It then reoffered the £2,500 compensation it previously offered, which the resident accepted.
The resident and her family moved into temporary accommodation on 18 October 2024. The landlord completed all of the works it had identified by 29 November 2024. The resident did not return to the property once the works were completed. The resident completed the mutual exchange on 9 December 2024.
The resident told us in September 2025 that the main issue of complaint had been resolved and she had received the £2,500 compensation the landlord offered. But felt the compensation was inadequate as the landlord only compensated for 12 months. She suggested the landlord should take learnings from our investigation, so other residents did not suffer the way she had.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident had made multiple repairs requests since moving into the property in 2019. We have seen evidence that the resident raised a previous complaint to the landlord about repairs in 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. But due to the passage of time and available evidence, it is reasonable for this investigation to look at events that happened from April 2024 onwards. This was the date the resident requested the landlord inspect the property for damage caused by the previous tenant. Any reference to events before this date is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord is responsible under tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), for keeping the property in an adequate state of repair. The Act requires landlords to carry out repairs for which they are responsible, within a reasonable timeframe.
What the landlord considers to be a reasonable timeframe is usually set out in the landlords repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. It will attend to repairs “first”, where there is a serious immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety, or the security of the property. And that all other repairs will be carried out at a time that is agreed with the resident.
2. Some work is more complicated than standard day to day repairs and needs more careful planning to find the right solution. It states that such work will be delivered by convenient appointment, in consultation with the resident and/or programmed into its planned maintenance programmes.
The lack of timescales for completing repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy is helpful and is likely to make it more difficult for the landlord to manage resident expectations. A recommendation is made later in relation to this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2024 reporting damage to various rooms caused by the previous tenant. This included damage to the bathroom door, the plaster in the living room, and some cracked door frames. The landlord carried out a virtual inspection on 7 May 2024. We accept that these issues were unlikely to have presented an immediate threat to the resident’s health, necessitating urgent inspection. But it was reasonable for the resident to have expected this inspection to have been carried out in a timelier manner. This was a shortcoming.
The landlord identified various works required to the property upon its inspection. This included overhauling and sealing windows, replacing some doors, and some replastering work. However, it did not inform the resident when these works were likely to proceed, which was unreasonable and led to the resident raising the stage 1 complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident in July 2024 after she complained, to confirm dates for completing the repairs. These repairs were scheduled for various dates throughout October 2024. The resident emailed the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its proposed timeline for completing the repairs. And explained that unless the works were brought forward, she would lose her mutual exchange partner. The resident also referenced plaster falling off the wall when closing the door, which she felt was a health and safety hazard.
We accept that some of the repairs identified by the landlord required several different trades, which would have needed some planning. The landlord committed in the stage 1 complaint response, to trying to bring some of the repairs forward. This was fair in circumstances. However, the landlord did nothing to address the immediate risk described by the resident from falling plaster. It would have been appropriate, as a minimum, for the landlord to have arranged to physically inspect the wall, given it previous inspection was virtual. The landlord could then have made the wall safe if that were necessary, as an interim measure.
We note the landlord confirmed in the stage 2 complaint response, that it could not bring any of the repairs forward, due to the scale of the work required and because it only had 6 operatives working in the area. We accept that the landlord may have preferred to manage the repairs as major works and within its existing resources. But it was unreasonable that the landlord’s staffing arrangements were used as a reason not to complete these repairs in a timelier manner. It would be usual for landlords to have systems in place to supplement its existing repairs workforce, at times of high service demand. This was a shortcoming.
It was positive that the landlord recognised in the stage 2 complaint response that its service had been poor. It tried to put things right by offering compensation and by making several commitments of action, which the landlord enhanced after the resident raised further representation. Although the landlord did not change its scheduled timeline for completing the repairs following its review, it did commit to:
1. Progressing the mutual exchange, alongside completing the works.
2. Moving the resident and her household into temporary housing for the duration of the works, after recognising vulnerabilities within the household.
3. Store the resident’s belongings for the duration of the works.
4. Remove waste left in the garden by the previous tenant, after recognising the resident had raised this issue with it before.
5. Compensating the resident for loss of amenity of the property, amounting to £1,900, which represented 20% of the total rent payable by the resident between 1 July 2023 and 18 October 2024. And £350 compensation in recognition of the impact to the resident caused by its poor service in its handling of the main issue of complaint.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation was consistent with its compensation policy, where there has been some loss of amenity of the property. And its services have fallen below expected standards, on multiple occasions. The landlord’s decision to limit its compensation for loss of amenity to 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint was reasonable, due to the passage of time. The landlord acted fairly by awarding compensation for future loss of amenity of the property.
In line with its commitments at stage 2, the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 18 October 2024, stored her belongings, and paid the compensation it previously offered. It cleared the rubbish from the garden and completed all the works it identified by 29 November 2024. However, this was 7 months after the landlord first committed to completing the repairs, which was unreasonable. However, as it continued to progress the mutual exchange alongside the repairs, the mutual exchange was able to proceed on 9 December 2024 without further delay.
Overall, the landlord did not complete the repairs it identified in May 2024 within a reasonable timeframe, which created distress and inconvenience for the resident and her household. As well as some continued loss of enjoyment and / or amenity of the property. The landlord accepted there were failings in its handling of the main issue of complaint, made a commitment of action, and made a reasonable offer of compensation to put things right. But the landlord did not identify all of the failings we identified during our investigation. This included, not acting on the resident’s report about plaster falling off the walls, with sufficient urgency.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs. However, we do not make a further award of compensation, as we consider the total amount of compensation awarded by the landlord provides sufficient redress for the failings we identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website).

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy, in operation at the time of the complaint, stated that the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It will issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the escalation request. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 10 July 2024. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement 5 working days later and the full stage 1 complaint response 9 working days after that. Therefore, the landlord managed the stage 1 complaint within expected timescales under its policy.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2024. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement 3 working days later and issued the full stage 2 complaint response 15 working days after that. Therefore, the landlord managed the stage 2 complaint within expected timescales under its policy.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint acknowledgements did not set out the reasons for the resident’s complaints, or the outcomes she was seeking. This would have been in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. The landlord missed opportunity by not including this information, to reassure the resident that it understood her complaint and enable her to raise a challenge if she felt it had misunderstood.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord will answer all points raised by a resident in the original complaint, within the complaint response. And its response will detail the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decision made, the details of any remedy offered, details of any outstanding actions, and how to escalate the complaint. This is also in line the Code.
The landlord included most of this information in the stage 1 complaint response. But it did not confirm if it was willing to put the resident’s belongings into storage, as she had requested. And it did not list all of the outstanding repairs, so it was clear to the resident exactly what repairs were part of the stage 2 complaint resolution. The resident contacted the landlord several times following issue of the stage 1 complaint, asking it to clarify the stage 1 complaint outcomes. However, the landlord failed to respond, causing avoidable time and trouble for the resident and led to the complaint being escalated to stage 2.
It was positive that the landlord did itself recognise, in the stage 2 complaint response, that its stage 1 complaint response was not in line with its policy and that its subsequent communication with the resident had been unclear. The landlord sought to put things right for the resident by apologising for this and explaining the action it had taken to identify what went wrong. The landlord’s response was reasonable and shows it was learning from complaint outcomes.
The landlord showed fairness by reviewing the stage 2 complaint outcomes after the resident raised continued dissatisfaction. It was positive that it recognised upon review, that it had not taken into account all of the resident’s circumstances when it issued the stage 2 decision. And tried to put things right by making additional commitments and enhancing its offer of compensation. This included £250 compensation for failures it had identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s offer of compensation for complaint handling was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy, where multiple failings have been identified. Our remedies guidance also suggests awards within a similar range, where there have been failings by the landlord, which have adversely affected the resident but there has been no permanent impact.
Overall, the landlord managed the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within expected timescales. In line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord acted fairly by accepting there were failings in its complaint handling. It tried to put things right by apologising for those failings and by making a reasonable offer of compensation. It also demonstrated learning from complaint outcomes. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay £2,250 compensation directly to the resident. This compensation may be reduced to nil, if the landlord has already paid the £2,250 compensation it previously offered the resident. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1,900 compensation, in line with its previous offer, in recognition of the loss of amenity of the property between 1 July 2023 and 18 October 2024.
2. £350 compensation, in line with its previous offer, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of main issue of complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Satisfy itself of the adequacy of its existing policies and procedures, for responding to reports from residents about matters of health and safety.
2. Satisfy itself that it has adequate systems in place, to supplement its existing repairs workforce, at times of high service demand.
The landlord is to provide evidence to this service that it has carried out such a review and provide details of its intention and anticipated timescale for progressing any identified learnings into its operations.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord pay the £250 compensation it previously offered (unless it has already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by failings in its complaint handling.
The landlord should consider the merits of amending its repairs policy, so that its repairs response timescales are clear to its residents, its own staff, its contractors, and to third party organisations such as us.