Midland Heart Limited (202327494)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327494

Midland Heart Limited

31 July 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 about a leak.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 28 September 2023, the resident reported a leak in the shower room. The landlord authorised an inspection on the same day.
  3. On 10 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as the repair had not been scheduled and he requested to speak with a manager. The landlord informed the resident that there was no record of the initial repair request.
  4. On the same day, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He explained that his repair request was not responded to and this was not an isolated issue with the repairs team. The repair was subsequently completed on 7 November 2023. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 November 2023 as he had not received a response from the landlord.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It acknowledged that it failed to log the complaint and this caused the delay in providing a response. It also acknowledged its communication with the resident was below the expected standard. It provided an apology, offered £50 compensation for the complaint handling and £50 compensation for poor communication, and stated it had shared learning with the team.
  6. On 7 December 2023, the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He stated that the landlord was either late in responding or failed to respond and he had not received a call from a senior manager. Furthermore, he stated that the repairs were only carried out after he met the liaison officer at the property rather than the repair hub helping. The resident stated that the compensation offered was insufficient and the response did not consider the failings and how improvements will be made.
  7. On 22 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the communication failures and the delay in its handling of the complaint. It offered further compensation of £100 for the inconvenience and poor record keeping and £50 for the delay at stage 2. The landlord recognised its service failings and stated it was continuously reviewing to improve its services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised repair requests prior to 28 September 2023 and the leak reported on this date was described to be the same as a previous leak. However, in his formal complaint, the resident raised concerns about the handling of the repair reported in September 2023. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint (28 September 2023 – 22 February 2024).
  2. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted on 22 February 2024 and the resident raised new repairs following this. Any issues not raised in the resident’s formal complaint and any new issues raised following the end of the landlord’s complaint process will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions fully through its complaints process prior to our involvement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the subsequent issues, he can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.

Handling of reports about a leak

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes repairs to the installations for sanitation such as the shower.
  2. On 28 September 2023, the landlord authorised a survey inspection and informed the resident that someone would contact him. On 10 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord stating he had not received any contact and the repair remained outstanding. Although the repairs handbook does not specify a timeframe for non-emergency repairs, the industry standard is 28 days. It would have been reasonable to inform the resident of the timeframe but we have not seen any evidence that the landlord did so. The resident’s chaser may have been avoided if he was informed of the timescale the landlord was working to.
  3. Furthermore, given that the resident had reported that the leak was causing damage and he could not shower, the landlord’s action did not reflect the urgency of the situation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise an emergency repair request andinspect the leak without delay.
  4. In the call on 10 October 2023, the landlord stated that it had no record of the initial repair request. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was given incorrect information and the call handler had not fully reviewed the previous contact notes. The resident submitted a complaint, which could have been avoided if the earlier repair request was identified and correct information provided to the resident. It is important to provide accurate information and this helps to minimise inconvenience and distress for residents.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that repair work was carried outon 24 October 2023, in 26 days and the remaining repairswere completed on 7 November 2023, in 40 days. While the repair logscontain limited information, the landlord’s internal correspondence confirmedthese dates and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident disputed this.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and stated that its communication with the resident should have been clearer and recognised this caused an inconvenience. It explained that it found evidence that the resident had to chase multiple times and that contact was not made within agreed timeframes. It offered £50 compensation for poor communication at stage 1 and £100 for the inconvenience and poor record keeping at stage 2. The total of £150 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer to put things right.
  7. During the telephone call on 10 October 2023 and in his escalated complaint, the resident requested to speak with senior management. On 30 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that a member of the management team had been asked to call the resident but it then failed to follow through on this commitment. Although the landlord claimed to be improving its services, the resident remained concerned about service issues and sought a meaningful dialogue. The landlord demonstrated some learning from the complaint and improved its communication in relation to keeping the resident updated. However, it missed an opportunity by not following up on the resident’s request to speak with a manager and it is understandable that this would have caused the resident further distress.
  8. The landlord recognised that improvements could be made to its processes, including record keeping and communication. It explained that it is continuously reviewing processes and delivering training where necessary. Furthermore, the landlord explained that it had provided feedback to the team to ensure learning is taken and to prevent a similar occurrence. However, the landlord could have provided further detail about the steps it was taking to improve its service delivery, for example how it would ensure inspection requests are actioned and repairs completed within target timescales. We have therefore recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its practice in relation to how it responds to reported repairs and record keeping.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and at any stage, if it needs further time, it will agree an extra 10 days with the resident.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint using the landlord’s online complaint form on 10 October 2023, the same day hechased the repair. Thelandlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The response was due on 24 October 2023, which the resident did not receive and followed upon 4 occasions (18 October 2023, 27 October 2023, 30 October 2023 and 10 November 2023). The resident eventually contacted usfor helpon 10 November 2023. This is not reasonable. Residents should not have to chase repeatedly or seek our assistance to receive a response.The landlordissued its response on 23 November 2023, after32 working days and it included an apology and £50 compensationoffer for the delay. It explained that the complaint was not logged when it should have been. The landlord took appropriate steps to put things right by addressing the delay, providing an apology and offering compensation.
  3. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 7 December 2023. On 12 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint and explained that it needed more time. On 9 February 2024, it sent a further update confirming that the response would be issued on 22 February 2024. The landlord met this revised target and responded in 52 working days. Although there was an initial delay in acknowledging the complaint, it is positive that the landlord kept the resident informed after its acknowledgement. The landlord explained that due to an administrative error, the resident’s request to escalate was not identified and offered an additional £50 compensation.
  4. The total of £100 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord has made a reasonable offer to put things right.
  5. While the landlord acknowledged the need to take learning and improve its complaint handling process, it did not provide any clear information as to how it intended to improve its complaint handling process. We have therefore recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its practice in relation to how it responds to formal complaints.
  6. The resident stated he did not receive the stage 2 response until after he chased itfurther (13 March 2024, 27 March 2024 and 11 April 2024). The landlord’s email correspondence, including at stage 1 and 2, were sent to the resident’s email address. We have seen evidence confirming that the stage 2 email was also sentto the correct email address. Therefore, we conclude that there is evidence the landlord sent the stage 2 response to the resident;whether the email was received was outside the landlord’s control. However, having been made aware that the resident had not received the response,a manager chased on multiple occasions for the response to be resent. It was inappropriate that this request was not actioned in a timely manner and this understandably would have caused the resident further inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of reports about a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the formal complaints process.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the failings identified in this report and completes a review within 4 weeks into its handling of repairs and complaints to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
    1. how it responds to reported repairs.
    2. record keeping.
    3. complaint handling.