MHS Homes Ltd (202425823)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202425823 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
MHS Homes Ltd |
|
Landlord type |
Voluntary |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
14 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported leaks that caused damp, mould, and pest problems in her home. She said these conditions made her son’s lung and heart problems worse. The landlord inspected the property and said it would carry out major repairs and arrange pest control. The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s communications, damage caused to her home, and the time taken completing the work.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to repairs and associated damp and mould.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs and associated damp and mould.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Repairs and associated damp and mould
- The landlord failed to coordinate, monitor, and complete the repairs identified in late 2023, resulting in a 15 month delay. While the landlord offered compensation, it did not consider the full period of the delay. It also did not keep the resident informed or manage her expectations.
Complaint handling
- The landlord was not sufficiently thorough when it considered its remedies during stage 2.
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:
|
No later than 11 February 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows:
This is in addition to what the landlord offered during the complaint process. 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 11 February 2026 |
|
|
Completing the works The landlord must write to the resident with:
The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work as set out in the landlord’s schedule of work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:
|
No later than 11 March 2026 |
|
|
Directional compensation order Following the completion of the repairs set out in the landlord’s schedule of works, it must assess whether any further compensation is due under its compensation policy. It must write to the resident to confirm its position, and if required, a breakdown of its calculation. |
No later than 18 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should offer the resident appropriate support to help her clear the loft so any affected repair work can proceed. This may include providing guidance, discussing any practical assistance available, or signposting to relevant services. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 2 November 2023 and 15 December 2023 |
The resident reported a recurring leak from the bay window near electrical sockets, which caused damp and mould. The landlord inspected the property and found a wet flat roof, damp in several rooms, a leak through the interior felt, and a suspected missing or bowed loft beam. It referred the case to major works. A later damp survey identified the need to reline the gutters, weatherproof the concrete guttering, repair brickwork, treat damp and mould in each room, install loft‑beam support, and complete damp and mould treatment in the bathroom and toilet. |
|
Between 19 June 2024 and 25 October 2024 |
The resident chased the landlord to ask why the full repairs from December 2023 remained incomplete, specifically damp and mould treatment. She explained her son has health conditions being impacted by the damp and mould. The landlord completed another damp survey and found high levels of moisture at the property. Works were recommended, including cleaning gutters, repairing brickwork, improving ventilation, renewing fixtures, and completing damp and mould treatment throughout the home. External repairs were also identified such as renewing the concrete path, installing a new drain, and removing waste. |
|
26 November 2024 |
The resident complained because she had experienced poor coordination and communication between the landlord and the contractor. She said various repairs were still outstanding. She was also concerned that essential loft work could not proceed due to an unresolved rat infestation. She highlighted discrepancies between the works originally agreed and what had been completed, alongside ongoing issues with cold draughts from the bay window and back door. She said she was repeatedly chasing the landlord for updates, and the situation was affecting her family life and childcare costs. |
|
18 December 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged repairs raised in December 2023 were not completed and accepted that there had been no communication with the resident for several months. It explained that after reinspecting the home, it cancelled the original works order because more extensive work was required. And it recognised that the contractor had made unscheduled visits. The landlord raised new jobs, including a full overhaul of all windows and doors, and confirmed that loft works could not proceed until the resident cleared the loft and pest control resolved the rat issue. It upheld the complaint, acknowledged failures in repairs and communication. And offered £900 for the 7 month delay (£350), and “severe mental and physical” impact on the family (£550). |
|
18 January 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint because appointments had been missed and communication between the landlord and the contractor remained inconsistent. She said several repairs were still outstanding, including draught issues, window boards and cold air entering behind kitchen cupboards, alongside delays to the loft insulation due to ongoing pest activity. She also raised concerns about earlier property condition issues, long‑standing leaks, difficulties progressing an insurance claim and additional costs she had incurred. The resident said the situation continued to affect her household and that she did not feel the compensation offered reflected the overall impact. |
|
17 February 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged ongoing problems with contractor performance, communication, and capacity, and explained that it was appointing new specialist contractors to improve its services. The landlord arranged an appointment for 21 February and asked contractors to address all known and newly reported issues. It partially upheld the complaint, re-offered £950 for its failures, and said pest control could proceed once the loft was cleared. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to us because the repairs remained outstanding and she was unhappy with the compensation offered. |
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 |
Response to repairs and associated damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident first reported leaks, damp, and mould on 2 November 2023. The landlord reasonably inspected the property on the same day. It confirmed issues with the flat roof, internal felt, and a suspected loft defect, which were causing damp throughout the property. It appropriately conducted a damp survey. Following this it referred the matter to its major works team and drafted a full scope of works on 15 December 2023. However, there is no evidence that all the work was scheduled, monitored, or completed, which contributed to an avoidable delay.
- Throughout 2024, the landlord raised repairs in a fragmented way. Namely, it scheduled window and door repairs for February 2025 despite raising the order in January 2024. It also relined the gutter and cleared them, but it did not raise any mould treatment despite the survey findings. It is unclear why the full scope of work was not scheduled after the survey. The manner in which the landlord approached the repairs is also unclear. Without evidence to show otherwise, we could not be satisfied that all necessary repairs were raised or completed. This caused the resident distress and left her exposed to damp and mould for longer than necessary.
- In September 2024, the resident reported that damp and mould were worsening her child’s health conditions. A damp survey in October 2024 confirmed high moisture levels and set out extensive work was required. We note the survey was shared with the resident and contained useful advice and guidance about mitigating property conditions while repairs were scheduled. However, despite the known vulnerabilities, there is no evidence that this work was prioritised or fully completed. Nor that it was taking sufficient steps to mitigate the risk to the resident and her family.
- Between October and December 2024, the landlord raised several partial work orders, but contractors attended without correct instructions, leaving work incomplete, and debris on site. This was evidence of poor coordination and oversight of the repairs. Causing the resident further inconvenience and distress as well as time and trouble reporting her concerns. We note structural surveys, asbestos checks, and door and window repairs remain at the “target date” stage, with no completion dates. As such we could not be satisfied that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to monitor or progress the repairs through to completion. This contributed to the delay and the resident’s frustration. A coordinated approach at the outset could have reduced the delay and distress experienced by the resident.
- The landlord said part of the delay was due to a loft infestation that it could not address until the resident cleared the space. Repair logs show this was recorded as a barrier to progress in November 2024. While this may have contributed to some delay in the loft work, it does not explain the overall length of delays in this case or the delays affecting other repairs. There was also limited evidence the landlord tried to support the resident with this so that it could complete repairs.
- The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates and reported incomplete work. But the landlord did not assess the reports against its repair records, provide regular progress updates, or manage her expectations about the repairs. This unnecessarily added to the resident’s uncertainty and distress.
- Ultimately, the repairs first reported in November 2023 remained unresolved for 15 months, during the complaint procedure. This meant the landlord failed to meet its 60 day timeframe for completion of major works set out in its repair policy, without good reason. There is also uncertainty around which work is outstanding at the property, and when they are due to be completed.
- Additionally, we understand the resident made an insurance claim for heating costs, damaged belongings, increased childcare costs, and ill health within the household. The parties have assessed and settled this claim. Part of her complaint concerned poor communication from the insurer’s claims team. As we cannot consider the actions of the insurer, we have not reviewed this further. However, we note the landlord acknowledged and apologised for her experience and accepted it could have taken a more “joined up” approach to support her more effectively with this.
- The landlord acknowledged poor communication, contractor oversight, and inadequate repair monitoring during the repair process. It appropriately accepted that its contractor selection and repair processes required improvement. And that it would employ more specialist contractors and imbed new standards for repairs and communications. It also recognised the household’s vulnerabilities and the associated impact of the delays. The landlord appropriately apologised and awarded £550 for the overall distress caused. However, it only compensated for a 7month delay, which did not reflect the 15monthdelay the resident experienced. As a result, it did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The Complaint Handling Code (the Code), applicable from April 2024, was in force at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
- We found that the landlord acted in accordance with the Code when it:
- Appropriately acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days.
- Responded at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
- We note the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 6 working days. While this was not compliant with the Code, we have seen no evidence that this was the cause of distress or inconvenience to the resident.
- The landlord did not show that it had reviewed the further failings after stage 1 or considered whether its original financial offer was still proportionate. As this issue formed the basis of the resident’s escalation request, it should have reassessed the continued delays and poor communication. Its failure to do so meant it did not fully address the complaint. As such, we have made a finding of service failure.
Learning
- The landlord should strengthen its oversight of contractors by giving clear instructions, checking work on site, and ensuring tasks are completed to the required standard. Better supervision would reduce incomplete work, repeat visits, and delays.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should keep accurate, up‑to‑date repair records and ensure all survey findings, work orders, and completion dates are clearly logged so repairs can be monitored and progressed without avoidable delay.
Communication
- The landlord should provide regular, proactive updates to residents, check reports against its own records, and clearly explain what work is outstanding to prevent confusion, reduce distress, and manage expectations effectively.