From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

MHS Homes Ltd (202425775)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425775

MHS Homes Ltd

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs.
    2. Plastering repairs.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2016. The property is a 3 bedroom house, with an outhouse.
  2. From at least July 2023 the resident reported problems with plastering in multiple rooms of the property. The landlord inspected this in September 2023 and March 2024.
  3. On 14 May 2024 the resident reported the back garden fences were rotten and falling down. The landlord attended the following month and said these needed replacing.
  4. The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2024. She said this was about outstanding repairs to garden fences and plastering. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 working days later, but has told us there is no evidence it sent a stage 1 response to the resident.
  5. On 29 July 2024 the resident made a second complaint to the landlord. This was subsequently treated as a request to escalate the first complaint to stage 2. She said:
    1. The plastering works agreed by the landlord did not address all of the issues.
    2. The fence repairs had not been booked.
    3. The landlord had attended 2 or 3 times for kitchen repairs, but these had not been completed.
    4. The front garden wall and concrete path were crumbling, and the outhouse was rotten.
    5. The front door was broken, despite the landlord attending to repair this.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 September 2024, saying the complaint was partially upheld. It confirmed it was responsible for some of the repairs identified, but said it would not agree to complete all the repairs requested. It offered £100 compensation for delays in its complaint handling and £100 decoration voucher.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in February 2025. She said repairs were still outstanding and asked for the compensation to be increased.
  8. On 9 May 2025 the landlord increased the compensation offer to £700.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us she has an outstanding repair to her kitchen extractor fan, which she has been chasing the landlord about. We have seen no evidence this issue was raised or responded to via the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, we are unable to investigate this matter. We have recommended the landlord contact the resident to agree how it will resolve this repair. If the resident is dissatisfied with this, she can raise this matter as a formal complaint with the landlord for investigation.

Repairs

Kitchen units

  1. The landlord is responsible for kitchen unit repairs in line with its repairs policy. This says it is responsible for fixtures and fittings provided in the property, including kitchen units. It is reasonable that the landlord deals with kitchen unit repairs as a standard repair, which its website confirms it will attend within 20 working days.
  2. When the resident reported kitchen cupboard and drawer repairs on 10 October 2023 and 27 November 2023, the landlord noted it attended in 14 and 17 working days respectively. While this was in line with the 20 working day committed timescale for standard repairs, there is no record of what works were completed during these appointments, and the resident subsequently reported, on 29 July 2024, that both repairs were still outstanding. This suggests no works were completed at the previous appointments.
  3. For kitchen unit repairs, it is reasonable that the landlord may need to order parts and if so, a follow up appointment should be made to fit these. It is not clear if this is what was needed in this case. Whatever the reason, there was a failure by the landlord to complete the works in the required timeframe, which was disappointing for the resident.
  4. Despite the landlord identifying these works were still outstanding on 5 September 2024, it did not raise a job for this until 2 months later, on 8 November 2024. This was only after the resident had expended time and trouble to chase this up on 3 October 2024 and 1 November 2024. The landlord attended in December 2024 and January 2025 to complete the kitchen unit repairs. This was more than a year after the resident first reported these repairs, and significantly over the 20 working day committed timescale for standard repairs. This amounts to maladministration.
  5. The resident told the landlord in March 2025 that there was still outstanding works to a kitchen cupboard. We have seen no evidence that it responded to this or took further action. In recent contact, the resident has told us this repair is still outstanding 6 months later, which is frustrating for her. We order the landlord to inspect the kitchen and confirm in writing to the resident what, if any, works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be done.

Garden fences

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for repairing boundary fences. Therefore, it was reasonable that when it identified some fencing in the back garden needed replacing in June 2024, it completed a boundary check with its legal team to confirm if this was its responsibility. This subsequently confirmed the fences were the landlord’s responsibility. While reasonable that it completed this check, it should have updated the resident periodically while it waited for the outcome. This would have reassured her it had not forgotten about this. The landlord failed to do this, which resulted in the resident making a complaint and expending further time and trouble to chase an update on 29 July 2024.
  2. During the inspection on 27 June 2024 the landlord identified one of the fences was a hazard. Considering this, it should have progressed the boundary check urgently so it could do any required works as quickly as possible. There is no evidence the landlord did this, and it did not raise a job to replace the hazardous fence until 23 September 2024. This was 4 months after the resident reported this and 3 months after the landlord identified this as a hazard. This was an unreasonable delay and amounts to maladministration.
  3. The landlord’s website says urgent repairs are ones which have the potential to cause harm to people, or damage to a home or building. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the replacement of the hazardous fence as an urgent repair, which its website confirms it will attend within 5 working days. The landlord replaced the hazardous fence on 13 November 2024, 37 working days after the job was raised. This was significantly over the timescale for urgent repairs.
  4. In addition to the hazardous fence, there was other fencing that the landlord had identified needed replacing. It was reasonable that the landlord prioritised the replacement of the hazardous fencing; however, there is no evidence it explained this to the resident. It was only when it attended on 13 November 2024, that it told her it would replace the rest of the fencing at a later date. This left her feeling let down as she believed the landlord would be replacing all of the fencing at the same time. This was avoidable, had the landlord’s communication been better.
  5. The landlord raised a job to install the remaining fencing on 20 December 2024. As this was not identified as a hazard, it was reasonable that it dealt with this as a standard repair. It noted it attended 37 working days later, on 3 March 2025. This was over the 20 working day committed timescale for standard repairs. As this was over the Christmas and New Year period, the timescale was reasonable and we have seen evidence that the landlord tried to bring this forward in January 2025. This shows it tried to get the work done as quickly as possible.

Front door

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the front door in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it will repair the structure and exterior of the property, including outside doors.
  2. On 18 July 2023 the resident reported the front door was falling apart, which meant it did not always lock properly. The landlord’s website says emergency repairs are ones that can put a resident in danger. Considering the resident had said the door did not always lock, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair and attended within the 24 hour committed timescale, set out on its website. It did not do this and attended 42 days later, on 29 August 2023. This was an unreasonable delay considering the nature of the repair reported. The repair did not go ahead on this date as the resident was unavailable for the appointment. While this resulted in a further delay, this was not attributable to the landlord.
  3. The resident reported a further problem with the front door on 27 November 2023, and said if she pushed it hard enough, it would open. This again, presented a serious risk and the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair. It again did not, and attended 39 days later, on 4 January 2024. This was another unreasonable delay and suggests front line staff were not adequately assessing the repair priority. We order the landlord to deliver guidance to staff dealing with repair reports on categorising front door repairs, in line with its current repair priorities.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 14 June 2024 that it would be replacing all of her windows and doors. Regardless of this, when the resident reported the front door was broken as part of her second complaint, on 29 July 2024, the landlord should have taken action to repair this to ensure it was secure, until it was replaced. There is no evidence it did this, which amounts to maladministration.
  5. In February and March 2025 the resident asked when the landlord would be replacing the windows and doors, but there is no evidence it replied to her. The resident has told us this work went ahead in June 2025, which means the front door issues are now fully resolved. While positive, this was 9 months after the landlord identified problems with the door at its inspection on 5 September 2024. We have seen no evidence that it completed any repairs during this period, which means the resident was left with a defective door for an extended period. This was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration.

Outhouse

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including garages and brick sheds. As the outhouse is built of brick and similar in design to a garage and shed, the landlord is responsible for repairing this.
  2. During the landlord’s inspection of 5 September 2024, it identified that the outhouse was in poor condition, with warped doors that did not shut and were rotten. It subsequently agreed to get its contractor, who had completed previous works, to reattend. The resident has told us works were completed to the outhouse in May or June 2025. It is positive that these works have been completed; however, this was at least 8 months after the landlord identified these were required. While this was not an urgent repair, the landlord should have completed this sooner, or told the resident why it could not. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.

Garden wall and concrete path

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the garden wall and path in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it will repair the structure and exterior of the property, including pathways and boundary walls.
  2. Following the landlord’s inspection on 5 September 2024, the landlord advised the resident it would not replace the wall as this was not necessary. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord was entitled to reach this conclusion. When she challenged the landlord about this in early October 2024, and suggested the wall was a health and safety risk, it was sensible of the landlord to review this. It subsequently confirmed it would repair the wall and the resident has told us this was done before the end of 2024. However, we have seen no evidence of this.
  3. It is not clear if the lack of records is due to poor record keeping, or a failure to provide us with the relevant information. Either way, this is a concern and means we cannot fully investigate this matter; as we cannot determine if the landlord completed repairs to the wall in a reasonable timescale. We order the landlord to identify the reasons why this information was not available/ provided and send a written report to the resident and us, confirming how it will ensure similar failures do not happen in the future.
  4. The landlord agreed to complete paving repairs as part of the stage 2 response, but again, we have seen no evidence that it has. The resident chased this up in November 2024 and February 2025, but there is no evidence it responded to her or took any action. In recent contact, the resident has told us these repairs are still outstanding a year later. This unreasonable delay and lack of communication has caused her to lose faith in the landlord, as it made a commitment to her, but did not follow through. This amounts to maladministration. We order the landlord to inspect the path and confirm in writing to the resident what works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be done.
  5. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint about repairs. However, its response was not clear what the specific failures were and it did not offer any redress for this (only its complaint handling). The landlord subsequently went on to offer £700 compensation in May 2025, which is at the higher end of the maladministration scale in accordance with our remedies guidance. Considering the multiple failures identified and the cumulative impact of these on the resident, this amount is reasonable.
  6. However, this was offered 8 months after the landlord’s final response and only after we contacted it in April 2025, about our investigation. Therefore, the landlord has not, on its own initiative, taken steps to put things right for the resident. While the landlord has offered reasonable compensation, it has not apologised or taken action to resolve all of the repair issues, as some remain outstanding. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her the £700 compensation already offered, if not done so.

Plastering repairs

  1. The resident has said she first reported concerns about the plastering more than 8 years ago. The scope of this investigation has covered events that occurred 12 months before she raised her formal complaint, in July 2024. Anything that happened before July 2023 has been considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord agrees to repair the structure and exterior of the property, including internal walls and plasterwork. The landlord’s repairs policy says residents are responsible for repairs to small cracks in plaster or walls. Therefore, it is sensible that the landlord inspects any reported damage or problems with the plasterwork, so it can assess whether it is responsible.
  3. The landlord did that in this case, when the resident reported concerns with the plastering on 18 July 2023. It arranged to inspect the property 3 weeks later, but this did not go ahead. As the resident cancelled this appointment, any delay as a result of this was not attributable to the landlord. It noted it rebooked the inspection for 30 August 2023, but there is no record this went ahead, or that it was cancelled/ rescheduled. The lack of records means we cannot make an assessment of this.
  4. When the resident re-reported this again on 25 September 2023, the landlord inspected 2 days later and identified works required to the living room, bedroom and external render. Despite raising a works order for this on 28 September 2023, and the resident chasing this in November 2023 and January 2024, there is no evidence these works were completed. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
  5. When the resident chased this up on 12 January 2024, she queried the scope of the works as it did not include the bathroom. In response to this, the landlord arranged a further inspection. While reasonable to inspect the bathroom to confirm if works were required, the landlord should have continued to progress the works it had already identified to the living room, bedroom and external render. Its failure to do so has contributed to the overall delay in the landlord completing the plastering repairs.
  6. The landlord arranged 4 inspections between January and early March 2024 to assess what works were required, but none of these went ahead. From the evidence we have seen, 2 of these were cancelled by the resident, and so any delays as a result of these failed appointments are not attributable to the landlord.
  7. An appointment on 30 January 2024, was noted as being rescheduled, but the records are not clear on the reason for this. Due to the lack of records we cannot assess whether this was a failure by the landlord. The landlord told the resident an appointment on 7 March 2024, could not go ahead because of a system failure. While understandable that these things can happen, the resident was not told about this until she contacted it to chase this up on the day. This was frustrating for her.
  8. The landlord inspected on 21 March 2024 and identified works required to the living room, bedroom, bathroom and external render. It raised a job the same day, but again, there is no evidence the works were completed; and the resident expended time and trouble chasing for updates in April and May 2024. This amounts to maladministration.
  9. Following the resident’s complaints in July 2024, the landlord reinspected the property in August and September 2024. By that point, it had been more than a year since the resident first reported her concerns about the plastering, and the landlord had already inspected on at least 2 previous occasions. It is not clear why the landlord needed to do a further inspection when it had already assessed what works were needed, and raised multiple orders for these. Its failure to progress the works already identified further contributed to the delays and was frustrating for the resident.
  10. The resident has challenged the scope of works set by the landlord on several occasions. It is reasonable that the landlord identifies the scope of works and only completes what it deems necessary. The landlord said in the stage 2 response that it would not replaster whole rooms, but would repair cracks. While it was entitled to reach this conclusion, this was different to the outcome of the previous inspections in September 2023 and March 2024, and did not explain the reasons for this. This inconsistency and lack of explanation was confusing for the resident and made her feel the landlord did not want to do the works.
  11. The stage 2 response confirmed it would complete plastering works identified during its inspection earlier that month. It said once it had confirmed who was leading on this, it would tell the resident. There is no evidence it did, which resulted in her chasing an update on 3 October 2024. In response, the landlord said it would provide dates for the works, but there is no evidence it did. It was only in response to further contact from the resident, in November 2024, that the landlord raised another works order for the plastering repairs. This again, contributed to the overall delay and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  12. Despite further appointments being arranged in December 2024, no plastering works were completed until February 2025. This was 19 months after the resident first reported this issue. The works completed in February 2025 were to the bathroom only, despite the landlord having previously identified works were required to a bedroom, the hallway, the living room and external render. While reasonable that the landlord would not complete all of these works at the same time, so as to minimise disruption to the resident; there is no evidence it told the resident when it would complete the further works so she was reassured these would be done.
  13. The resident has told us that the plastering in the living room was completed in July 2025 and the bedroom this month. While positive that the landlord has now completed this work, it has taken more than 2 years for it to do so. This is an unreasonable delay. While some of the delay was not attributable to the landlord, it could have done more to complete these works sooner.
  14. The resident has told us there are still plastering works outstanding under the stairs, and that the landlord is due to be contacting her to arrange this. As this appears to be in hand, we have not made an order in respect of this. The resident has also told us there are outstanding works to the external render, which she has not heard anything about. Therefore, we order the landlord to complete any required plastering works to the external render. If the landlord will not complete any works, it must tell the resident this in writing and explain the reason why.
  15. We recognise there were times when the landlord needed additional information before it could progress plastering repairs, including asbestos checks and quotes. It is reasonable that the landlord needed to obtain this information before it could go ahead with the works and we understand this may have contributed to the delays, but were outside of the landlord’s control.
  16. In this situation, the landlord should keep in regular contact with the resident to provide updates and do all it can to obtain the required information as soon as possible. This offers reassurance that it has not forgotten about the works and is taking this seriously. The landlord did not do that in this case and we have seen evidence that the resident had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions for updates and action. This included chasing the landlord to obtain quotes and share a copy of an asbestos check with its contractor. This was time consuming and frustrating for her.
  17. The landlord’s repairs policy says residents are responsible for internal decoration. Despite this, it was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a decoration voucher in the stage 2 response. This is because it had committed to complete patch repairs only, meaning redecoration would have been needed. We have seen no evidence that this has been paid to the resident and as the landlord has now completed further plastering works, additional decoration vouchers may be required. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident the £100 decoration voucher previously offered, if not done so, and confirm in writing whether it will provide any additional vouchers.
  18. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of plastering repairs. While the landlord partially upheld the complaint, its response was not clear what the specific failures were and it did not offer any redress for this (only its complaint handling). This was disappointing for the resident and made her lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
  19. The landlord offered compensation 8 months after the final response, however, we have determined the £700 was reasonable for the landlord’s handling of repairs only and not including the plastering. As the landlord has not adequately acknowledged its failings in the handling of this issue, or offered redress, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this or put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in 2 working days, on 8 July 2024; and the stage 2 complaint in 5 working days, on 5 August 2024. These were in line with the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord has told us there is no evidence a stage 1 response was sent to the resident and the resident has told us she never received a stage 1 response. This suggests the complaint was never considered at stage 1. This is a concern and means the resident’s complaint was only considered once by the landlord. This was in contravention of its complaints policy, which said complaints would be considered via a 2 stage process. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident sooner.
  3. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 40 working days. This was over the 20 working day response time set out in its complaints policy. During the period of delay, the landlord extended the response deadline twice, on 29 August 2024 and 9 September 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy, which said it would send holding responses if it could not respond within the committed timescale.
  4. The second holding response said the landlord would respond by 19 September 2024, but it failed to do so. It was only after the resident expended time and trouble to chase the response, on 22 September 2024, that the landlord sent this 2 days later. This made her feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  5. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for failures with no permanent impact. However, the landlord did not apologise. This was unreasonable and suggests it was not fully committed to accepting the failures and putting things right for the resident. As the landlord’s offer of redress was not quite proportionate to the failings, and did not fully put things right for the resident, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her the £100 compensation already offered, if not done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. Plastering repairs.
      2. Repairs.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Inspected the kitchen and confirmed in writing to the resident what, if any, works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be done.
    2. Inspected the garden path and confirmed in writing to the resident what works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be done.
    3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of repairs, plastering repairs and complaint handling.
    4. Paid the resident £1,100 compensation, made up of:
      1. The £700 already offered for its handling of repairs, if not done so.
      2. £300 for its handling of plastering repairs.
      3. The £100 already offered for its complaint handling, if not done so.
    5. Completed any required plastering works to the external render. If the landlord will not complete any works, it must tell the resident this in writing and explain the reason why.
    6. Paid the resident the £100 decorating voucher previously offered, if not done so, and confirmed in writing whether it will provide any additional vouchers.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Delivered guidance to staff dealing with repair reports on categorising front door repairs, in line with its current repair priorities.
    2. Identified the reasons why information about the garden wall repairs was not available / provided and send a written report to the resident and us, confirming how it will ensure similar failures do not happen in the future.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to agree how it will resolve the outstanding repair to the kitchen extractor fan.