MHS Homes Ltd (202441321)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her children. She has health conditions which the landlord is aware of. The day she moved into the property she reported debris left in the back garden. She first raised a complaint in October 2024. She said a kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall and injured one of her children. She said when she reported this to the landlord, the call handler was unsympathetic. She also said the operative who installed the kitchen was inebriated.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to a kitchen cupboard, wall, and floor.
   2. The resident’s reports of staff conduct.
   3. The resident’s report of the condition of the garden including an overgrown tree.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to a kitchen cupboard, wall and floor.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of staff conduct.
   2. The residents report of the condition of the garden including an overgrown tree.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s report of damage to the kitchen wall and floor.
   2. The landlord addressed the residents reports of staff conduct and appropriately compensated for the failings it identified.
   3. The landlord addressed the resident’s reports about the garden and overgrown tree. It offered compensation that reflected the failings it acknowledged.
   4. The landlord acknowledged its delay in issuing its stage 2 response and offered reasonable financial redress.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has said her child sustained and injury during the incident involving the kitchen cupboard. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for this. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident alleged damage to personal belongings caused by the cupboard falling from the wall. She is seeking compensation for these items. We do not make binding decisions on negligence or liability or assess the handling of insurance claims. We can however assess if the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies an emergency repair as something that will cause serious damage or place a resident in danger. It will attend to an emergency within 24 hours. It states an urgent repair is something that could have the potential to cause damage or harm and these will be attend to within 5 working days.
10. In her complaint the resident explained the cupboard had come away from the wall without interference. She also expressed concern as to how the cupboard had been fitted. As a result of the incident, parts of the kitchen had been damaged, including the worktop and flooring along with personal items. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging an inspection within 2 working days. This is in line with its policy for an urgent repair and demonstrates it took the residents report seriously.
11. The records show the resident approached the landlord’s claims team directly on 9 November 2024 regarding the damaged washing machine. It responded in 7 working days to advise it had requested further information from its complaints team. This is a proactive response and demonstrates appropriate internal and external communication.
12. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained the inspection findings and set out clear next steps. It confirmed the original cupboard used standard fittings and said longer screws would be better practice. It also advised the resident about weight limits. The landlord offered a practical solution by replacing the large cupboard with two smaller units using heavy‑duty screws and said it would check the other cupboards. This response showed a reasonable and proactive approach to resolving the issue.
13. In the resident’s complaint escalation, she confirmed that the landlord had replaced both the kitchen cupboard and damaged worktop. However, she has expressed dissatisfaction that it had left holes in the wall from the original cupboard and had not yet replaced the damaged floor tile. Its policy sets out it is responsible for these areas. In its response the landlord failed to address these concerns, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuit of her complaint. The resident has advised us that, to date, these works are still outstanding
14. In its stage 2 response the landlord has provided clarity on its position regarding the damaged items. It stated it did not offer compensation for items where the insurer should consider a claim or where the resident could make a claim under their contents insurance. It acknowledged she had submitted a claim for these items to its claim team. This was an appropriate response and in line with its compensation policy.
15. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to a kitchen cupboard, wall and floor. Whilst the landlord was proactive with its inspection and was resolution focused on its solution, it failed to fully comply with its repair obligations. It also missed the opportunity through the complaints process to address this, which has caused the resident to continue to pursue a full resolution. As such, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £50 for the time and trouble caused by its failings.

16. The resident reported that two members of staff acted inappropriately. She said one member of staff showed no empathy when she reported her child had been injured. She also alleged that she saw an operative drinking alcohol while working. The landlord’s conduct policy says a line manager will carry out an initial investigation to decide whether it needs to take further action.
17. This service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
18. The landlord addressed both of these allegations in its stage 1 response. It advised that it takes these matters seriously and offered assurance that the incident regarding a staff member drinking alcohol at work was under investigation by a manager. It apologised for any lack of empathy shown regarding her child’s injury and it offered an explanation of why it had not classified the incident as an emergency. This is an appropriate response and demonstrates it followed its conduct policy and took her reports seriously by referring the report to a manager.
19. The resident elaborated further on one of the alleged incidents in her complaint escalation. She alleged that the staff member told her ‘it’s not my problem’ while reporting her child had sustained an injured from the kitchen cupboard.
20. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately identified a missed opportunity to provide clarification in its previous response. It has explained it failed to advise the resident that it had in fact referred both incidents to the respective managers for investigation. It explained that it investigates any complaints about staff internally and outcomes remain confidential. It was appropriate for it to confirm that it had passed the matters for investigation and that it would not be sharing the outcome due to data protection. We has seen evidence that these matters had been progressed internally.
21. In acknowledgement of this missed opportunity the landlord offered a total of £125 as a gesture of goodwill. It said the award covered 3 failings, but it did not explain how this amount was divided between them. As the landlord’s compensation policy indicates awards of £50 for short‑term service failures, we consider £50 of the £125 to be a proportionate amount for this failing. This aligns with our remedies guidance when there has been a loss of confidence in the landlord’s service.
22. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct. The landlord apologised, explained why it would not share the outcome of its internal investigation, and acknowledged that it had not fully informed the resident about how it handled her concerns. Its compensation offer was in line with its policy.

23. The tenancy agreement states the maintenance of gardens and outside spaces are the resident’s responsibility. The resident is also responsible for ensuring trees and bushes do not grow out of control. However, as the debris pre-dated the resident’s tenancy, it remained the landlord’s responsibility to clear it. It does offer a limited grass cutting and hedge service for disabled people which is available on application.
24. The day after moving into the property the resident reported debris in her back garden to the landlord. Between the 11 September 2024 and 22 October 2024, she continued to chase the landlord as to when they would attend to clear this. In her complaint she alleged the landlord’s delay in removing this debris had resulted in her child stepping on a nail. She also expressed concern that a large tree in the front garden was overgrown and causing damage to the property.
25. The records show that following an inspection of the rear garden on 11 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged the debris in the garden was its responsibility. It confirmed a collection was needed to clear several items including rubble, garden statues, a concrete post and to empty the refuse bins. This is a delay of around 2 months after the resident reported the issue. The records also show the landlord did not clear the debris in the garden until 17 December 2024. This is a delay of around 3 months from when the resident first reported the issue. This is an unreasonable period of time to leave a resident without a resolution where it excepted responsibility for its removal.
26. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that it had not adequately cleared the rear garden prior to the resident moving in. It acknowledged it had inspected the tree and had accepted it was very large but had found no evidence of property damage. It confirmed that the tree was also under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and as such, it would need to check how it could address the resident’s concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise about the garden and to confirm it sought advice on how to address the overgrown tree.
27. The records show conflicting information regarding the status of the tree. On 27 November 2024 the landlord’s estates team have confirmed it had surveyed the tree and would complete work during the year. However, in its stage 2 response it said thatit was awaiting a response from the local council regarding the TPO. It did confirm that its estates team would attend and see what measures it could take whilst it awaited the council’s response. In contact with us, the resident says although the landlord has cut back some of the branches the tree is causing damage to the property. She also says she is still waiting confirmation regarding a maintenance schedule.
28. In its stage 2 response the landlord did acknowledge that it had not followed up on its enquiry to the local council. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused the resident and offered a total compensation of £125. As previously mentioned, its award encompassed 3 identified failings and we have had to consider a fair and reasonable approach to separate this.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy states offers of £50 for instances of service failure of a short duration. We have therefore attributed £50 of the total £125 offer for the failings identified addressing the resident’s garden related complaint.
30. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of her garden including an overgrown tree. The landlord acknowledged the debris was its responsibility after its inspection, the delay in collecting this was unreasonable. It acknowledged its failings in not pursuing the TPO restrictions and its offer of compensation for this was in line with its policy.
31. However, considering the resident’s concerns that she is still unsure who is responsible for the maintaining the tree, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her. This discussion should include reassurance that she has registered on the landlord’s garden assistance scheme due to her disability.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
33. The resident raised a complaint on 27 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 November 2024 with its stage 1 response following on 18 November 2024. Both of these are within the timescales stated in its policy.
34. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged this 4 working days later on 9 December 2024. It issued its stage 2 response 22 working days later on 13 January 2025. This is outside of the timescale advised in its policy.
35. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did acknowledge the delay, appropriately apologised and offered a total compensation of £125. Its award encompassed 3 identified failings however, it has failed to provide a breakdown of the individual offers. As such we have attributed £25 of the landlord’s £125 offer for the identified complaint handling failures. This is consistent with our remedies guidance when there has been a delay in the landlord’s service.
36. While its response time wasoutside of those stated in its policy, the landlord apologised and offered redress. It is therefore our finding that the landlord’s offer provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Learning

General learning

37. We recommend that the landlord sets out its compensation more clearly and explains which parts of the complaint each amount relates to. This will improve clarity for anyone reading the response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord provided accurate records upon request to enable us to determine what actions it had taken and the timeline involved.

Communication

39. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing repairs. The landlord must provide regular updates so the resident does not need to chase for information. Failure to share accurate details creates confusion, delays, and frustration for residents. Good practice involves explaining what work will take place, confirming dates, and ensuring all parties understand the requirements. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.