Midland Heart Limited (202231913)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231913

Midland Heart Limited

29 May 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. Reports of water ingress into the property and subsequent repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 4-bedroom house.

3.             The resident has arthritis and mobility issues.

4.             The resident contacted the landlord to report water ingress from the roof on 12 September 2022. The landlord attended on 18 November 2022 to inspect the roof and identified several necessary repairs. The landlord attended again on 14 December 2022 and 19 January 2023 to attempt repairs.

5.             The resident reported further water ingress from the roof on 3 April 2023. On 19 April 2023, she reported new water ingress caused by a leak from her kitchen sink. The landlord decided on 20 April 2023 that – due to the cost of repairs – it would need to replace the roof entirely.

6.             Following the landlord’s decision, the resident contacted it to raise a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 May 2023.

7.             The landlord undertook a survey of the inside of the property on 4 May 2023 and raised several remedial repairs, including to fix the leaking kitchen sink. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2023. It agreed that it had taken too long to complete the works and also apologised for the handling of the complaint. It said it would be surveying the roof on 19 May 2023 and was due to begin internal repair works on 26 May 2023. It added that it would consider compensation when it had completed the works. It also provided her with information on her available options for a move.

8.             The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 June 2023. She was unhappy with the standard of the internal remedial repairs the landlord had undertaken such as its re-painting of her ceiling. She was also unhappy with its handling of the roof repair and that the works were still incomplete.

9.             The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2023. It apologised for the time the repair was taking, and said it was working with a neighbour to erect scaffolding. It also arranged an appointment to inspect the internal remedial repairs on 25 July 2023.

10.        The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 25 July 2023. She said she wanted us to consider her complaint as the landlord had not moved forward with repairs, and that its contractors failed to attend the inspection appointment. She said she wanted the landlord to complete the unfinished repairs to a high standard, offer compensation for the loss of furniture, and move her to a suitable home.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

11.        Following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident experienced new instances of water ingress into her property. As these, and the landlord’s responses, have not been through the complaints process, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate them. If the resident wishes for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of these later instances of water ingress, she will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord before we can investigate. We have however reviewed later records where they are relevant to the matters we are able to investigate.

Reports of water ingress into the property and subsequent repairs

12.        The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales. For emergency repairs, the landlord says it will attend within 24 hours of the resident reporting a repair. For routine repairs, it says that it will complete these within 28 days and it will do major repairs within 90 days.

13.        The landlord agreed in its complaint responses that it took too long to diagnose that the resident’s roof needed a replacement. The landlord undertook its first visit on 18 November 2022. This was 48 days after the resident reported the water ingress. The time taken for the landlord to initially inspect was outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy and represented service failure.

14.        The landlord undertook 3 visits – on 18 November 2022, 14 December 2022 and 19 January 2023 – before deciding on 20 April 2023 that a roof replacement was necessary in order to stop the water ingress. The landlord’s repair records do not provide sufficient information for the Ombudsman to be able to determine what actions it took at each of these appointments.

15.        Nevertheless, the landlord took a total of 7 months from the first water ingress report to determine that the roof required replacement. There was therefore an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing a diagnosis.

16.        The landlord replaced the roof on 15 August 2023. This was around 11 months after the resident first reported the water ingress. The total length of time for the landlord to diagnose and resolve the repair fell significantly outside of the timescales specified in its repair policy. This again represented service failure from the landlord.

17.        However, the landlord did complete the roof replacement in a reasonable time, once it identified the need to do so. This was a period of around 4 months. Although the landlord’s timescales for major works show it will complete these within 3 months, there were some unavoidable delays. The landlord had to co-ordinate with a neighbour to erect the necessary scaffolding and undertake inspections for asbestos with subsequent works to remove this. Therefore, we do not conclude that there were unnecessary delays at this point.

18.        The resident reported additional causes of water ingress, including an issue with the guttering causing damp on her walls (on 6 March 2023) and water ingress in the kitchen (on 3 April 2023 and 19 April 2023). The landlord’s records suggest it completed a kitchen sink repair on 4 May 2023. The time taken for the landlord to complete that repair was broadly in line with the timescales set out in its repair policy. However, there is no evidence that it addressed the guttering.

19.        Further, the landlord’s internal communication on 5 July 2023 indicated that other causes of water ingress (besides the roof) remained ongoing at this date. It raised jobs for this on the same day, including to excavate and repair the water supply as well as the drain. It is unclear to the Ombudsman why it took the landlord such a long time to diagnose the alternative causes of water ingress. It is still unclear if the landlord has completed those works. The landlord’s internal communications from July 2023 noted that it had let the resident down “with wrong diagnostics when visiting the property for maintenance issues”. The landlord’s actions in resolving other potential causes of water ingress were poor.

20.        In the meantime, the landlord undertook remedial repairs to fix water ingress damage inside the resident’s property on 4 May 2023. The works listed included painting the ceiling in the middle bedroom, overhauling the fans in the kitchen as well as a damp and mould treatment. However, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the standard of these works, causing the landlord to re-inspect. The landlord’s inspection revealed that the works were not up to sufficient standards and it agreed to attend to re–complete these on 25 July 2023. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to attend this appointment.

21.        Whilst the landlord’s actions in re-inspecting represented a resolution focused approach, its failure to attend the follow-up appointment, and that it completed the initial works to such a poor standard in the first place, undoubtedly caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. The landlord should have offered the resident compensation for these failings. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 9 September 2023 that the landlord was still yet to complete many of the internal works. The landlord’s evidence does not make it clear if these works have now been completed.

22.        To resolve her complaint, the resident told the landlord she would like it to move her to a different, smaller property. The landlord’s allocations policy says that there are occasions where it ‘may offer a property directly’. These include where the landlord is unable to perform the adaptations necessary for the resident, or when the police advise a resident is not safe in their property. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that – in this instance – it would be unable to offer her a property directly. This decision was in line with its allocations policy.

23.        In both of its complaint responses, the landlord offered her information and advice about possible options for arranging a move. These included registering on its internal portal, registering with the local authority and advertising for a mutual exchange. It also arranged for a member of its Lettings Team to contact her directly to discuss possible options. These were fair actions from the landlord in handling the resident’s request. 

24.        Nevertheless, whilst the landlord gave appropriate alternative options in signposting her for a move, it still should have used its discretion to assess whether the long-term water ingress posed any risk given her health conditions. This may have led it to consider at least a temporary offer of a move given it had realised by July 2023 that its diagnosis work was flawed. The landlord’s failure to properly consider this represented service failure.

25.        The resident has told the Ombudsman that she would like the landlord to compensate her for damaged furniture. The landlord should provide the resident with the details of its insurer and its contact details. This will enable the resident to contact the insurer if she wishes to pursue compensation for any items that she feels were damaged due to the landlord’s actions.

26.        The landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the repairs, including the initial remedial works. It said as part of its complaint responses that it would offer the resident compensation. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it contacted the resident to discuss compensation but has not provided any evidence of this. Given the extent of the service failure, the Ombudsman would expect to see a significant effort from the landlord to follow-up on its commitment.

27.        Overall, the landlord took too long to diagnose the cause of water ingress, to decide to renew the roof and to complete the necessary repairs to halt the water ingress. It also admitted that the internal repairs it undertook were to a poor standard. These were over the course of almost a year. The landlord committed to paying the resident compensation, but failed to provide evidence it took the necessary steps to follow up on this commitment. It also did not assess any risk to the resident across a lengthy period despite acknowledging it was responsible for delays.

28.        It is of concern that a handover report in February 2024 shows that there were still potential causes of water ingress outstanding, including deteriorated brickwork and door sealant and a breached damp proof course. It is inappropriate that these are outstanding, and the landlord has recorded that rainwater entered various areas of the property as a result.

29.        For the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a failing which ‘had a significant impact on the resident’.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

30.        The landlord’s complaint procedure has 2 stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and aim to provide its written stage 1 response within 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2, the landlord says it will aim to provide its response within 20 working days.

31.        The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s original complaint. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to say how long it took to respond. However, it did say as part of its stage 1 complaint response that it had handled her complaint poorly. It said in its response letter that it had closed her complaint early and without responding.

32.        This likely meant that the resident had to take additional time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response. The landlord’s early closure of the complaint represented a failure to properly respond to the complaint.

33.        The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 June 2023. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2023. This was 21 working days later. This was a minimal delay that likely had no impact on the outcome of the case.

34.        As part of its complaint responses, the landlord said that it believed its service failures ‘warrant the payment of compensation’. The landlord has however failed to compensate the resident for this service failure.

35.        The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This figure is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been ‘a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided’.

Determination

36.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property and subsequent repairs.

37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

38.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:

1. Pay the resident £1,050 consisting of:
   1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of water ingress at the property and subsequent repairs;
   2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her associated complaint.
2. Write to the resident to:
   1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
   2. Provide details of its insurer and how to make a claim for any damages to personal items.
3. Inspect the resident’s property to assess whether there are any current outstanding sources of water ingress and any internal remedial works to complete. It should also consider whether there is any risk to the resident in remaining in the property in its current condition and, if so, whether a temporary or permanent move can be offered.
4. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome with timescales for any works it identifies. It should provide a point of contact who will offer fortnightly updates to the resident pending completion of those works.
5. Provide evidence that it has done so.