Midland Heart Limited (202402793)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with a chimney. On 28 December 2023 she reported that a concrete slab had fallen from the chimney and onto her car. She called the landlord to report the falling debris. She complained to the landlord about its handling of the repair and requested compensation for damage to her car and resultant expenses she incurred.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

a)     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s chimney.

b)     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by a falling concrete slab.

c)     We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:

a)     There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s chimney.

b)     There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her car.

c)     There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord raised an emergency repair when the resident reported falling debris. Although its records were unclear on the precise attendance time, it took reasonable steps at the emergency stage to make the area safe. It warned neighbours and arranged follow‑on works. The substantive repair required scaffolding which it completed promptly on 4 January 2024. Overall, the landlord acted in line with timescales set out in its repair guidance and service standards.
5. The landlord clearly explained that it considered the incident unforeseen and recommended that the resident claim through her own insurer. This was consistent with the resident’s tenancy agreement confirming she is responsible for insuring her personal belongings. The landlord further explained that if her insurer identified any negligence on its part, the matter would be referred to the landlord’s own insurers for investigation. This was an accurate and appropriate explanation of the correct process for assessing liability.
6. The landlord acknowledged at stage 1 that it had not logged the resident’s initial complaint, apologised, and offered £50 for the delay. In its final response of 12 April 2024, the landlord later apologised that it had closed the resident’s complaint in error and reoffered the £50 compensation. This was a proportionate remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as it recognised the error and sought to put things right.

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s repair guidance states that emergency repairs are issues that pose an immediate health, safety or security risk and it should attend within 24 hours. Its published service standards confirm that it should complete routine repairs within 28 days.
8. The resident first reported falling debris from the chimney on 28 December 2023. The landlord’s repair records confirm it raised a job the same day for ‘loose brick on chimney stack falling into road barely missed tenant’s car’. However, the landlord cancelled this job. The landlord re-raised the job on 29 December 2023, but the records show it marked this as complete on 28 December 2023.
9. The resident disputed that the landlord attended on 28 December 2023. She told us that she made several calls that day because nobody arrived and that she contacted the police due to concerns about further debris falling. She said she called the landlord again the next morning at 7.50am and again at 1.33pm after no attendance. The landlord did not provide call logs to evidence the timing or frequency of calls. The landlord’s repair logs do not confirm an attendance time. As a result, the evidence is inconclusive on whether the landlord attended within its 24-hour emergency timeframe.
10. The landlord’s notes on its repair log record that an operative ‘made safe’ by advising neighbours not to park in front of the property and took photographs. Given the need for scaffolding to carry out works at height, it was reasonable that the operative could not complete full repairs during the first visit. This was in line with the landlord’s published guidance that emergency visits may only make the area safe pending follow‑on works. The landlord’s records support this, as the initial operative logged the need for follow‑on works.
11. The resident was distressed that the landlord repeatedly referred to the fallen object as a tile rather than a concrete chimney slab. While this was understandably upsetting for the resident due to the weight of the slab, this terminology issue did not materially affect the landlord’s handling of the repair.
12. The landlord provided repair logs that show it raised follow‑on works requiring scaffolding on 3 January 2024. Its records show it completed the works on 4 January 2024. The works included erecting scaffolding, accessing the chimney, replacing the missing capping slab, and securing the chimney. This was within the landlord’s 28‑day target for routine repairs and therefore met its published timescales.
13. In its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024, the landlord said the incident was unforeseen. In contact with us the landlord explained that it does not operate a scheduled inspection programme for chimneys. There is no evidence that the landlord was on notice of any prior issues with the chimney, and no requirement in its published policy or in legislation for landlords to carry out routine chimney inspections. There is no evidence the resident made any previous reports about the chimney.
14. The evidence is inconclusive on whether the landlord attended within its 24‑hour emergency timescale. The resident told us she was particularly distressed by the risk posed by the weight of the falling slab and the potential for serious injury to passers-by. It is likely that waiting for the full repair heightened this distress. However, the landlord’s obligation at the emergency stage was to make the area safe, rather than to complete the full repair. Its notes record that the operative warned neighbours not to park near the chimney. The substantive works required scaffolding, and the landlord completed the works promptly on 4 January 2024, in line with its repair standards. Although the landlord’s unclear record keeping was a shortcoming, it did not cause sufficient detriment to amount to service failure. Overall, the landlord carried out the follow‑on works in accordance with its repairs guidance, and there was no maladministration in its handling of the repair.

What we have not investigated

15. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns her view that the landlord was responsible for the damage to her car and should compensate her for this. We cannot decide whether the landlord was negligent or liable for the damage. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court, tribunal or another procedure. In this case, the resident has already pursued a claim through her car insurer, and that is the correct route for determining liability.
16. It is also not the role of this Service to review or overturn decisions made by an insurer. We therefore cannot assess whether the resident’s insurer should have approached the claim differently or whether its decision was correct.

What we have investigated

17. We have assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation, including whether it signposted her appropriately, explained its position clearly, and acted in line with her tenancy agreement and its own policies.
18. In its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024 the landlord explained that it considered the incident unforeseen and that it did not accept responsibility for the damage. It recommended that the resident make a claim through her own insurance. This was reasonable because the landlord’s approach reflected the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms that the landlord insures the building, while the resident is responsible for insuring her own belongings.
19. In its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024 the landlord reiterated that in unforeseen circumstances, its standard practice is to advise residents to use their own insurance. It also explained that if the resident’s insurer identified any negligence on the landlord’s part, the claim could then be referred to the landlord’s own insurers for further investigation. This was an appropriate and accurate explanation of the insurance process.
20. The landlord acted reasonably in signposting the resident to her insurer, explaining how any potential liability would be assessed, and setting out the limits of its responsibility under the tenancy agreement. Its position was clear and consistent, and there is no evidence of maladministration in how it handled the resident’s compensation request.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
22. The resident submitted a complaint on 4 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the next day, in line with the Code.
23. The resident called the landlord on 9 January 2024 and raised concerns that the landlord had closed her complaint. The member of staff gave her the complaints team’s email address but did not take steps to ensure that the complaint remained open. As the Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction ‘however made’, the landlord could have offered greater assistance at that point.
24. The resident added to her complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 February 2024, within the Code’s requirements, and issued its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024. This met the Code’s 10 working day timescale. In this response, the landlord said that it had not logged the resident’s earlier complaint, apologised, and offered £50 for the delay. This was a proportionate remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations like this where the failing was of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2024. Although the landlord did not issue a formal written acknowledgement, a member of staff confirmed during the call that they would escalate her complaint.
26. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024, 22 working days after escalation. This was 2 working days outside the Code’s 20-day requirement. The landlord apologised again and noted it had incorrectly closed the resident’s original complaint. It reoffered the £50 compensation. It did not, however, acknowledge the delay at stage 2. This was a minorshortcoming, but the delay was short and unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident. Given the limited detriment and the redress already offered at stage 1,we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failings.

Learning

27. The resident experienced uncertainty about when the landlord would attend and what actions the landlord had taken. Strengthening staff awareness of how to explain safety measures to residents, especially where they feel unsafe or report serious risks, would support clearer communication in future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records were inconsistent with the resident’s account of repeated calls and no attendance that day. This made it difficult to follow the sequence of events. Had the landlord recorded the operative’s time of attendance, it would have been easier to evidence whether it had met its 24‑hour emergency response standard. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights the importance of accurate, complete and contemporaneous records to provide a reliable audit trail and avoid disputes about what action was taken. Strengthening repair‑recording practices in line with the KIM principles would reduce confusion and support clearer decision‑making in future cases (Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)).

Communication

29. The landlord incorrectly closed the resident’s initial complaint without contacting her, which led to confusion and avoidable escalation. The landlord may wish to remind its staff of the provisions of the Code around responding to complaints.