Midland Heart Limited (202316809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316809

Midland Heart Limited

25 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs, pest control, and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bed mid-terrace house. The resident has reported issues with both her physical and mental health to the landlord.
The resident made a complaint on 21 September 2023. She said:
1. 2 oak trees had been blocking a fire exit for 8 years.
2. There was damp in the bathroom and living room. She said this had caused respiratory issues.
3. There had been leaks in the kitchen roof for years.
4. There was a rat infestation in the property. She said she had been trying to resolve it with the support of the local authority, but they would not provide any further support until the landlord carried out repairs. She said she had spent weeks reporting pest issues to the landlord.
5. The brickwork at the front of the property was not connected to the roof. This let pests such as rats, mice, and feral cats into the cavity walls. There were also 3 hornet nests in the gaps.
6. Her stairs had been damaged by rats, but contractors refused to complete repairs unless she removed the carpet herself.
7. All bedroom doors were rotten due to water damage.
8. She had electrical safety concerns as there had been exposed wiring on an external spotlight.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. It said:
1. There had been no reports of issues with the roof between 15 January 2020 and 15 March 2023. As such, it would only look at reports from March 2023 onwards.
2. Its contractors inspected the roof in August 2023. They stopped the repairs because they found a wasp nest. It had contacted its environmental team to arrange removal of the nest, but this was delayed by the need for scaffolding. It accepted there were delays, and apologised.
3. It had removed the trees which were blocking access to the property on 1 March 2023. However, it had not cleared the overgrown bushes. This caused further delays to the repairs. Its contractors would be clearing the overgrown bushes in the week beginning 23 October 2023.
4. The resident had reported pests in June and August 2022, with further reports in 2023. Its pest control contractors attended on 24 August and 22 September 2023. The report showed they found no pests, so it closed the pest control case.
5. The resident reported damp and mould on 25 September 2023. It had booked a surveyor inspection for 12 October 2023, and would determine what repairs were necessary after that inspection.
6. It upheld her complaint, and said it said it would assess compensation once it had completed all of the repairs.
The resident made a second complaint on 31 October 2023. This repeated a number of her original complaints, but added further concerns. The landlord treated this as an escalation request.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. It said:
1. Following the resident’s reports about the roof at the start of 2023, its contractors attended on 8 March 2023. They attended again on 21 June 2023, but were not given access. They reattended on 5 July 2023 and completed repairs.
2. The resident reported that the issues with the roof were not fixed, and it attended on 30 August 2023. At that point it discovered the wasp nest, which meant works had to be put on hold. Its contractors put scaffolding up on 2 November 2023 and discovered the nest was next door, not in the resident’s property. The roofers said the fascia was coming away from the roof. However, the resident said she did not want those roofers attending again. It had therefore booked its in-house roofers to attend on 8 December 2023.
3. It had arranged pest control visits. The case was closed as pest control confirmed they saw no pest activity.
4. It had cleared the trees on 1 March 2023, and the bushes on 26 October 2023. There had also been fly-tipping, which it cleared on 31 October 2023.
5. It had received no reports of damp and mould from the resident between 8 January 2021 (when it completed mould treatment) and 25 September 2023. As such, it would not consider earlier reports as part of the complaint.
6. It completed a mould inspection on 12 October 2023, and completed mould treatment on 2 November 2023 in the bathroom and lounge. No further treatment was required.
7. It offered £850 compensation. This included £500 for delays in works from 21 February 2023 to 8 December 2023, £250 for inconvenience, and £100 for poor communication.
As the landlord’s response did not address all of the complaint points, we gave it a further opportunity to respond and address all of the complaints. It issued an updated stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. It said:
1. While the resident had referred to issues with the back doorstep, the last report had been in 2018. It had completed repairs at that time. As there was a new report in the complaint, it would arrange for an operative to attend on 20 March 2024.
2. She had reported a leak in her garden in March and April 2023. It accepted it had not arranged the necessary investigation. It would address this during the 20 March 2024 visit.
3. It would be completing temporary roof repairs on 20 March 2024 ahead of a full roof renewal.
4. It could not find any record that it was previously made aware of problems with the stairs caused by pests. However, when pest control attended they found no evidence of pest activity.
5. It received reports of a live wire and repaired this on 4 May 2023 at an emergency make safe appointment.
6. It had now sealed the kitchen windows, and would shortly renew the kitchen.
7. It offered £1,800 compensation. It said this was an interim offer which it would review on completion of the works.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us.

Events post-complaint

Since the complaint, the landlord has renewed the roof at the resident’s property. It has also reviewed the compensation offered, and increased it to £2,000 total. The extra £200 was offered in September 2025 because of a failure to review the compensation as promised in the original stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, or which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable time (usually 12 months).
The resident has raised concerns about a large number of issues, and said some of those issues go back between 6 and 8 years. In line with the Scheme, we will only be considering events from around September 2022 – 12 months before the resident’s complaint – up to the landlord’s final complaint response. However, we may refer to events before or after that date for context.
Any events following the stage 2 response were not considered as part of the complaint, so we cannot assess them as part of this investigation. Should the resident want us to look into any events after the stage 2 response, she would need to make a new complaint to the landlord and refer that complaint to us separately once it has gone through the landlord’s complaints process. For the avoidance of doubt, any subsequent complaints would be investigated separately, and would not be a continuation of this complaint.
The resident has also told us that the repair issues in the property have had a significant effect on her physical and mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be determined by the courts, as the courts can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings in this regard. However, we will consider general distress and inconvenience caused by any failings on the landlord’s part.

Repairs, pest control, and damp and mould at the resident’s property

There are a wide range of aspects to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her property condition concerns. We have considered these separately below before making an overall finding.

Repairs – access to the property

The resident said there were 2 oak trees blocking access to the property through a communal alleyway. She said this had been an issue for 8 years, and delayed the landlord completing works. The landlord said it had removed the trees on 1 March 2023, but had not also cleared the overgrown foliage. It accepted there were delays by its environmental contractors in clearing the foliage. It said it had removed the foliage on 26 October 2023.
The resident said this caused fire safety issues and delayed repairs. It is not within our remit to determine whether or not the trees or vegetation caused a fire safety issue, or blocked a fire escape route. However, it is undisputed that the landlord’s delays in clearing the area had a knock-on effect of delaying essential repairs at the resident’s property.
As the landlord has cleared the trees and vegetation, this part of the resident’s complaint is now resolved. The only outstanding matter is whether the landlord has done enough to put things right. We have considered this further in a summary below.

Repairs – roof and brickwork

It’s common ground that the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof. The resident said there were significant repair issues with the roof. This included multiple holes in the roof area, which allowed both water and pests into the property.
The landlord’s repair records show there were a number of issues with the roof and brickwork between 2017 and 2019. There is then no evidence of any reports until the end of 2022. As explained above, we will only be considering the landlord’s actions from September 2022 onwards.
The landlord’s repair records show the following action with regard to the roof:
1. It logged a works order to fill holes in the brickwork on 7 November 2022. Its records say this was an ‘ongoing issue’. However, it cancelled the works order without taking any further action. It said this was because it needed the clear the accessway for scaffolding. It has provided no evidence of taking any action to clear the accessway or arrange scaffolding permits at that time.
2. It arranged a survey on 21 February 2023. It has not provided a copy of the survey report, but its records indicate the surveyor identified faults with the roof.
3. It completed works on 14 April 2023, and inspected those works on 17 April 2023. The operatives who completed the inspection confirmed the works were completed to the necessary standard.
4. On 16 May 2023 it raised a new works order for the roof after the resident said there were holes in it. It also said it could not arrange pest control unless the roof was removed. It raised a works order on 25 May 2023, and completed works on 5 July 2023.
5. It booked a survey on 14 July 2023 following another report of faults with roof. It cancelled the survey. In its internal emails on 26 July 2023, it said it had completed all necessary repairs. This was despite being aware of further reports from the resident.
6. On 21 August 2023 it inspected the roof. It has provided no survey report or other inspection notes.
7. On 31 August 2023 operatives inspected the roof and advised there were no issues with it. The resident disputed those findings. She said they only inspected internally as they had brought the wrong type of ladder. We have seen no further evidence related to this inspection.
8. On 1 September 2023 the landlord recorded that there were holes in the breeze blocks near the roof where pests could enter. A few weeks later, its roofing contractors chased up regarding the repairs. They said they could only book the works in when the pest control team had finished their work.
9. There was then an impasse when the roofing contractors would not attend to put up scaffolding until pest control had visited, but pest control could not complete their work without scaffolding.
10. The landlord asked the roofing contractors to put scaffolding up on 18 October 2023, and cleared the accessway at the end of October 2023.
11. After the landlord cleared the accessway, there were multiple visits related to the roof. Those were from a combination of its roofing contractors and its in-house roof maintenance team. The landlord completed temporary repairs to the roof on 20 March 2024, and replaced the roof in January 2025.
The landlord’s repair records include no reports of problems with the roof following the temporary repairs on 20 March 2024, and the roof has since been replaced. As such, it’s reasonable to conclude that the problems with the roof are now resolved.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of these repairs. However, it has not acknowledged all of the failings, and various aspects of its complaint responses are inaccurate. For example, it said there were no reports from the resident between 2020 and March 2023, when this is contradicted by its own repair records. It also said the resident refused access in June 2023, when it has provided no evidence to support that.
The repair records provided by the landlord are incomplete, and this has hampered our investigation into this complaint. However, based on the evidence provided, only a small part of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control (such as the need for a permit for scaffolding or the discovery of a wasp nest which needed to be cleared before its roofing contractors completed works).
The majority of the delays were caused by the landlord’s poor handling of repairs and a lack of appropriate monitoring of ongoing repairs. For example, its failure to clear the accessway for a significant amount of time in turn delayed the roof repairs. As it has not provided any survey reports or inspection notes for a number of the visits, it has also not shown it carried out reasonable investigations into the issues with the roof.
There were therefore multiple failings in its handling of the repairs, which left the resident with ongoing roof issues for over a year by the point of the second stage 2 complaint. We have considered whether the landlord has done enough to put this right in the summary below.

Repairs – pest control

The landlord is responsible for pest issues caused by a defect in the building if it was on notice of that defect. This applies whether or not there are pest control obligations under the tenancy agreement or its policies.
The resident said that the problems with the roof allowed rats, mice, birds, and feral cats into the cavity walls of the property. The landlord said that its pest control operatives found no evidence of pests, so it closed the case.
The landlord’s records include various historical reports of pest issues going back to 2018. As set out above, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s actions from 2022 onwards.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported pest issues on 13 June 2022. She said the local authority had been carrying out pest control in the property, but would no longer do so until the landlord completed repairs.
The landlord’s repair records show it raised a works order to fill holes internally and externally. It then cancelled this works order. Its notes say there were no internal holes at that time, and that it could not fill the external holes without scaffolding. It said it could not put scaffolding up until the alleyway was clear. It has provided no evidence of taking any further action with regard to pests until August 2023, despite the resident reporting ongoing issues during that time. This was clearly unreasonable.
Following further reports from the resident in August 2023, the landlord took the following actions related to pests:
1. It attended on 10 August 2023 and found holes in the stairwell, bathroom, and kitchen.
2. Its pest control contractor inspected on 12 August 2023. They found evidence of rodent activity in the cavity spaces, and baited the property. They attended follow-up appointments on 24 August and 22 September 2023 and found no evidence of any pest activity. They advised no further action was necessary at that time. We have seen no evidence that they completed any inspection related to reported wasp nests.
3. When the resident reported that she believed the rats could be coming from a neighbour’s property, the landlord contacted the landlord of that property to report those concerns. The managing agent for that property confirmed they would take steps to resolve any pest issues.
4. It raised a works order to fill internal and external holes on 21 August 2023. It attended on 15 September 2023. The operative told the resident she would need to lift the carpets before they could proceed. The resident contacted the landlord as she disputed this was necessary. She said the landlord should lift the carpet. The landlord said the operative found no evidence of damage to the stairs. This was despite the landlord having previously identified damage to the stairs, and the operative confirming they could not proceed with filling holes until the resident lifted the carpets. As such, the landlord’s comments are not supported by evidence.
5. On 27 September 2023, the landlord’s roofing contractors advised that pests appeared to be getting in through gaps in the fascia and brickwork. The landlord responded that its pest control operatives were holding up the roof works. This was because the roof operatives would not complete works until the wasp nests were cleared.
6. On 2 October 2023, pest control attended and found mouse droppings under kitchen cupboards. They said the landlord would need to fill holes in the gas cupboard, and that they could not reach the wasp nests without scaffolding.
7. Pest control attended again on 9 and 23 October 2023, and 1 November 2023. They said they found no evidence of rat or mouse activity on any of the visits. They said the wasp nests were still active on the first 2 visits, and treated a nest on the third visit. They treated the remaining nests on 3 November 2023.
8. The landlord closed the pest control case related to mice and rats on 6 November 2023. Their records said there were no holes allowing access, and the pests were from the property next door. However, it made this decision while pest control visits were ongoing.
9. Pest control visited on 10 November 2023. They said the resident was still reporting pest noises in the walls. They found no evidence of any rodent activity, but said the wasps were still active. They visited again on 17 November 2023. They said there was no evidence of any pest activity, and the resident made no further reports. They therefore closed the case.
The landlord has not acknowledged any specific failings with regard to pest control. However, as set out above, there were significant delays between the resident’s reports in 2022 and its first inspections in August 2023. After August 2023, it took a number of reasonable steps such as arranging pest control visits and speaking to the managing agents of the neighbour’s property. However, it has not shown it did enough.
While it was reasonable to arrange pest control visits (albeit significantly delayed), it is apparent from the landlord’s records that building defects with the roof and brickwork created access points for pests. When pests are able to gain access as a result of building defects, it is not possible to fully resolve the pest issues until the repairs are carried out. As such, the landlord’s unreasonable delays in clearing the accessway and completing the roof repairs also delayed a meaningful resolution to the reported pest control issues.
With regard to the stairs, the landlord said in its updated stage 2 response that the resident never reported damage to the stairs, and that its pest control operatives found no evidence of pests. The evidence it has provided shows that was incorrect. It identified holes in the stairs on 10 August 2023, and identified rodent activity on more than 1 visit. Its records also show it did not complete the identified proofing works because the resident’s carpet was in the way. The operative told the resident she would need to lift the carpets, and the resident thinks the landlord should lift them. This created an impasse.
It is common practice to ask a resident to lift their own carpets (as they belong to the resident) for repairs, and the landlord’s operatives confirmed they could not proceed with works until the resident had lifted the carpets. While we note the resident disagrees with the landlord’s position, the request for the resident to lift the carpets was not unreasonable. And we have seen no evidence that she reported any specific reason she would be unable to do so.
However, the landlord has not shown it considered whether there were other options which were reasonably available to resolve the impasse. Had it done so, and taken a resolution-focused approached, it’s possible it could have avoided some of the distress the resident experienced as a result of the pest issues in the property.
For the reasons set out above, we find there have been multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of pest control in the property.

Repairs – damp and mould

The resident said there have been issues with damp and mould in her property for 6 years, and that it was causing health issues. She said these issues were ongoing at the time of the stage 2 response, and that the actions the landlord took in response were superficial and did not resolve the problem. The landlord said there had been no reports of damp issues between January 2021, when it had completed damp works, and 25 September 2023. It said it had booked a surveyor for 12 October 2023 and would advise the resident of the necessary works after that survey.
We understand the resident is unhappy that the landlord has not looked back 6 years. However, the landlord’s repair records show no reports of damp and mould between late 2020 and early 2023. As such, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to limit its investigation to 2023 onwards.
However, the landlord’s conclusion that there were no reports until September 2023 is contradicted by its internal records. The landlord’s internal emails show the resident reported damp on 2 March 2023 and 7 July 2023. The landlord raised a works order for a surveyor inspection on 14 July 2023, which it then cancelled without explanation.
As such, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to respond appropriately to reports of damp and mould for 6 months by the time the resident made a complaint. It also only completed an inspection after the resident made her complaint. This was demonstrably unreasonable and inappropriate.
Following the initial complaint, the landlord raised a works order for an inspection of a ‘longstanding issue with damp and mould’. A surveyor inspected on 10 October 2023, and identified rising damp in the living room. The survey includes no details of any inspection into the bathroom. The landlord then arranged works in both the living room and the bathroom. It said it completed the works on 2 November 2023, and that its internal maintenance manager confirmed no further damp and mould works were needed.
However, the landlord has not provided evidence of any such investigation or advice by its maintenance manager, and the resident disputes that the damp and mould were resolved. The landlord’s internal emails from 13 December 2023 also refer to the roof issues causing damp and mould in the property, and the roof issues were unresolved at that time. Given the contradictory information in the landlord’s records, the lack of evidence to support that no further works were needed, and the roof repairs not being complete at that time, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord resolved the damp and mould as stated by the time of the stage 2 response.
There are therefore further failings the landlord did not identify in its complaint investigation. We have considered what else it needs to do to put things right below.

Repairs – electrical safety

As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about exposed live wires connected to an external light in the garden.
The first evidence we have seen of the resident reporting this was on 12 April 2023. The landlord raised a works order, and completed the works on 4 May 2023.
Exposed wires would be an emergency repair which should be completed within 24 hours under the landlord’s repairs policy. Instead, it took the landlord 3 weeks to complete the repair. This was an unreasonable delay, which the landlord has not acknowledged or provided an explanation for. As such, there were failings in its handling of this repair.
The resident has also referred to sockets ‘fizzing’ due to water leaks from the roof when raising her second complaint in October 2023. We have not seen any evidence that this was reported to the landlord prior to her complaint, so the evidence does not show that the landlord failed to act on this report.
Since her initial complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident has made a further complaint about electrical safety in the property. The landlord has responded to those concerns as part of a separate complaint, which the resident has not yet referred to us. As such, we will not be considering those further issues as part of this investigation.

Repairs – garden pipe leaking

The resident said there was a leak from an underground pipe into her garden. The landlord said she first reported this in March 2023, and the local water company came to clear the drains. It said she next reported the issue on 17 April 2023, and it booked an inspection for 25 April 2023. It acknowledged that it had not arranged a further appointment, and that more investigation was required.
The landlord’s repair records support the landlord’s summary, and the landlord has accepted it did not respond appropriately to the leak. We have considered whether the landlord has done enough to put things right below.

Repairs – door step

The resident said there was a hole in her doorstep, and this was allowing rats into the property. The landlord said the resident had last reported issues with the doorstep in 2018, with nothing else reported since. It did not accept any failings.
The landlord is only required to complete repairs to a resident’s property when it is put on notice of repairs. We have seen no evidence to show the resident raised issues with a hole in the back door step within the timescale considered as part of this investigation. The first report was as part of her complaint on 31 October 2023. We have also seen no evidence that the pest control operatives reported any holes in the doorstep which were allowing entry to pests.
In the absence of any evidence that this was reported prior to the complaint, we cannot reasonably conclude that there were any failings by the landlord with regard to repairs to the door step.

Repairs – kitchen windows and lack of insulation

The resident said there were problems with her kitchen windows, which were letting in draughts, and that the property was extremely cold due to inadequate insulation.
The landlord is only required to complete repairs to a resident’s property when it is put on notice of repairs. We have seen no evidence to show the resident raised these issues prior to her complaint. The first report was as part of her complaint on 31 October 2023.
In the absence of any evidence that this was reported prior to the complaint, we cannot reasonably conclude that there were any failings by the landlord in this regard.

Summary – repairs

It is apparent from the landlord’s repair records that the resident has been reporting repair issues for a significant length of time. Many of the repair issues raised as part of this complaint (such as roof defects, damp and mould, and holes allowing pests in) have been recurring themes in the repair records going back to 2018.
As set out above, we will only be considering the landlord’s actions in the 12 months prior to the complaint, up to the stage 2 response. However, this history provides relevant context when assessing the level of distress the resident experienced as a result of repair issues in the time period we are assessing in this investigation.
The landlord has accepted a number of failings around its handling of repairs, particularly surrounding the roof and the rear alleyway. In its stage 2 response it offered the resident £1,800 for its failings around handling of the repairs.
The offer of £1,800 is in line with our published remedies guidance for serious failings by a landlord which have accumulated over a significant period of time. This is an appropriate level of compensation for distress and inconvenience for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint responses, and for the duration of those failings.
However, as set out above, there were further failings which the landlord did not identify in its stage 2 response. The compensation offered does not take those failings into account. We therefore find there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs. Had the landlord not offered the increased compensation in its March 2024 complaint response, it is likely this would have been a finding of severe maladministration.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the landlord should pay the resident a further £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its further failings set out in this report. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which have a significant impact on a resident. The total compensation to be paid, including the £1,800 offered as part of the updated stage 2 response, is therefore £2,400.
As it is not clear whether all of the repair issues are now resolved, the landlord must also contact the resident to determine whether there are any outstanding repairs. An order to this effect is set out below.

Complaint handling

Under its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must log a complaint within a specific timescale. Under the Code, it must also respond to all parts of a resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the relevant timescales. However, it did not respond to a number of the resident’s complaint points in its stage 1 response (such as complaints about an outdoor spotlight, the front brickwork and roof not being connected, or water damage to internal doors). It also failed to include parts of the complaint in its stage 2 response, leading to this Service asking it to issue an updated stage 2 response. There were also a number of inaccuracies in the complaint responses (examples are set out above), which is a failing.
We understand the resident is unhappy that the landlord only investigated the 6 months leading up to her complaint, and did not investigate the previous 6 years, as she requested. The landlord said this was in line with its complaints process.
The landlord’s complaints policy was updated in September 2023. Under the new policy in place at the time of the complaint, the investigation limit was 12 months, not 6 months. As such, the landlord was not following its complaints policy when it limited the investigation to 6 months. However, this does not mean it was required to investigate the previous 6 years. It would only be required to investigate the 12 months leading up to the complaint.
The landlord also told the resident that its compensation offer was an interim offer, which it would review once it had completed works. Following our enquiries, the landlord accepted that it never reviewed the offer as promised. It has accepted this was a failing, and contacted the resident in September 2025 to offer additional compensation for that failing. It is promising that the landlord has accepted this was a failing and offered compensation. However, it should not have taken intervention from the Ombudsman for the landlord to carry out actions promised in its stage 2 response.
The landlord has offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This offer of compensation is sufficient, and in line with our published remedies guidance. However, it has not apologised for the various complaint handling failings, or shown that it has taken appropriate learning from the complaint.
For the reasons set out above, we find there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs, pest control, and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,600 compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation offered in its updated March 2024 complaint response (and its updated compensation offer in September 2025), and is broken down as follows:
  1. £2,400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of repairs, pest control, and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to determine whether any of the repairs considered as part of the investigation remain outstanding, and whether or not any further works or inspections are required. It must also make enquiries to determine if there are still pest issues in the property.
Within 8 weeks of this determination, the landlord must arrange refresher training for all complaints handling staff, using this complaint as a case study, to prevent a recurrence of its complaint handling failings in future.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.