Midland Heart Limited (202427156)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427156

Midland Heart Limited

19 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property including the bathroom, the windows, the cellar, damp and mould, the drains, the guttering, a leak into the kitchen and rubbish in the communal garden.
2. The resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident’s property is a ground floor flat in a converted house. The resident suffers from PTSD and is registered disabled and is a carer for a relative. The landlord is aware the resident has health issues and that she is a carer.
The resident reported to the landlord on 21 March 2024 that her bathroom needed repairs. The repairs included the basin pedestal and splashback, the tiles, the skirting board behind the toilet and a hole in the wall.
On 24 April 2024, a landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to carry out repairs to her bathroom. The operative was unable to complete the bathroom repairs during this visit as the resident had to leave the property to attend an appointment. The landlord rescheduled the work, but it was not able to attend the rescheduled appointment. A member of the landlord’s staff called the resident on 16 May 2024, to schedule an appointment to complete the works the same day. The resident did not agree to this appointment due to the landlord not giving her sufficient notice.
The resident told the landlord on 30 April 2024 that it had not given her any notice prior to its operative attending to carry out works to her bathroom. She said the work its operative had carried out was incompetent. She also said that there were holes underneath her windows and the landlord needed to ensure that the property had full central heating. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and said it had escalated her concerns about the poor workmanship in her bathroom.
On 28 May 2024, the resident complained to the landlord over the phone about its staff member who had called her to arrange to complete the works to the bathroom. She said she had felt intimidated and bullied by this person. She also said the landlord had told her that her property had an energy performance rating of E and that it had booked an inspection to establish what steps it needed to take, to address this. She said the landlord had not carried out this inspection.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 June 2024. It apologised to the resident if she felt its staff member had not listened to her and that she had felt pressurised into accepting an appointment that was not suitable for her. It advised it had taken the matter seriously and would ensure that neither the operative who had carried out the initial repairs to her bathroom, nor the staff member who she had complained about,were involved in any repairs to her property in future. It said it had arranged a new appointment for the repairs to the bathroom for 17 June 2024. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
On 27 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about works to her bathroom due to take place that day. The landlord told her that it had booked a one-hour appointment but said that in fact 4 hours were needed to carry out the work. The resident told the landlord she had paid someone to move her belongings out of the bathroom so that it could carry out the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2024. She said the landlord had informed her it had booked an appointment to complete the bathroom works for the morning of 4 July 2024. She told it she needed an afternoon appointment as she was unavailable in the mornings. She also said she was not able to move heavy furniture in advance of any inspections or repair works.
On 2 July 2024, the resident raised further issues with the landlord. The landlord told the resident it would add these issues to her complaint. The resident said:
1. There was no drainage in the cellar which meant that water leeched into the walls of the property making it damp. She told it that the damp proof course (DPC) in the property had failed. She said that the mortar between the exterior brickwork had crumbled, and the walls were porous. She advised it that slugs and woodlice were eating her carpets and books.
2. The windows had gaps around them. She said that the radiator in her bedroom was corroded and was not working.
3. The landlord had carried out an asbestos survey, but she had not been informed as to whether there was any asbestos in the property.
4. The guttering and the drains were blocked.
5. The landlord had booked a morning appointment for a damp and mould inspection; however, she had had to cancel this. She reiterated she was only available for afternoon appointments due to caring for a relative.
6. She was not strong enough to move any furniture and did not have anyone who could help her do this. She said the repair issues were affecting her physical and mental health.
On 8 July 2024, the landlord raised an order to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord’s records state that the resident contacted it on 1 August 2024 to request that it arrange the damp and mould inspection in September 2024 as she was caring for her relative.
The landlord’s records state that it carried out an inspection of the property on 2 September 2024. It said that the windows, the kitchen and the bathroom were due to be upgraded and that more insulation may be needed in the cellar.
On 20 September 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been leaks into her kitchen. She said these were coming from her upstairs neighbour’s bathroom. She said the upstairs neighbour had fitted new flooring without permission. She disputed that the landlord had carried out an inspection of the property on 2 September 2024. She said she had cancelled a hospital appointment to be at her property for the inspection, but the landlord had not shown up.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 October 2024. She said:
1. She had suffered an asthma attack during the works to the bathroom due to the nature of the chemicals the landlord’s operative had used. She said she had been unable to open windows due to the smell coming from the blocked drains.
2. The drains and guttering were still blocked.
3. Her ceiling was stained due to leaks from the property above.
4. The floorboards her neighbour had installed in their property were noisy. She said the landlord had installed vinyl flooring in the communal hallway which also led to noise and contributed to the damp in the cellar.
5. She said a copy of the lease she had seen when she was looking into buying the property, stated that the property came with the use of the cellar. She said she needed to store belongings in the cellar and wanted the landlord to carry out works to ensure it was dry.
6. The property did not have a secure front door, and post was regularly stolen from letterboxes.
On 15 November 2024, the resident raised the issue of blocked drains again. She said the gutter and the downpipes at the property needed replacing. On 20 and 29 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to chase its response to her stage 2 complaint. On 6 January 2025, she contacted the landlord again as she had still not had a response.
On 7 January 2025, the resident reported that there was glass and asbestos buried in the communal garden. The landlord’s operatives attended the property the same day however they said the resident had already cleared the glass away.
On 14 January 2025, the landlord visited the resident at her property. Its records state that she told the landlord she did not want it to renew the kitchen until it had addressed all the repairs she had reported to it. The resident told the landlord she was sleeping on her settee.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 January 2025. It apologised for the delays in it escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It apologised that the resident had suffered an asthma attack during the works to her bathroom. It provided its liability insurers’ details should she wish to submit a claim for damage to her health.
2. It had unblocked a drain gully on 15 November 2024 and had unblocked the gutters and a downpipe on 9 December 2024. Its contractors had attempted to carry out further works to the drains on 19 November 2024 but had not been able to access the property due to locked gates and no-one answering the intercom.
3. It planned to upgrade the kitchen at her property and needed to arrange a further inspection in relation to this.
4. It appreciated that the resident had not been able to agree to it carrying out a damp and mould survey thus far due to her caring responsibilities. It apologised if the resident had not been informed in advance about appointments to carry out inspections. It had arranged a damp and mould inspection for 24 January 2025.
5. It had booked an appointment to carry out repairs to the windows on 7 February 2025.
6. It had reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement and although the cellar was accessible from her property, it was not habitable, and she should not use it for storage. It had previously carried out some works to insulate the cellar, however it would inspect it again to establish whether it was causing damp to the resident’s property.
7. It had not identified leaks from any pipes or appliances in the neighbour’s property. It had, however, noticed signs of potential water ingress via the pitched roof above the resident’s kitchen.
8. The flooring in the communal hallway met its standard and was fit for purpose. It said it did not consider the noise from the hallway to be excessive.
9. It had inspected the letterboxes at the property and found these to be in working order.
10. It would investigate the resident’s concerns about rubbish and glass being left in the communal garden.
11. It offered the resident revised compensation of £1705 broken down as follows: £305 for its failure to rectify the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe, £400 for the loss of her home, £150 for the errors in its complaint handling and £850 for impact and inconvenience.
On 20 January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord. She said its stage 2 complaint response had not addressed the issue of the leaks and noise from her neighbour’s flat. She reiterated that she believed she should be able to store belongings in the cellar. She said the landlord should update all the drains at the property. She said she wanted to cancel the landlord’s inspection of the property booked for 24 January 2025.
The landlord made several attempts to book appointments to carry out inspections and repairs between February 2025 and April 2025; however, the resident asked it to postpone these due to her health and her caring responsibilities. On 2 April 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain the importance of her allowing it access for inspections and repairs. It said it understood her anxieties given her experience of previous visits from builders and surveyors and offered her reassurance that it would support her throughout the process.
On 28 April 2025, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. It found no evidence of rising or penetrating damp. It found areas of damp on the kitchen side wall and the living room side wall. It identified the underground drainage system may be blocked and may require cleaning. It found that the hopper at the rear of the property was blocked with vegetation. It identified damp staining on the ceiling and wall above the front bay window and said that the bay roof, flashing, and adjoining brickwork may not be watertight. It said it needed to plaster the damp-affected sections of the kitchen and living room walls, clean out the underground drainage system, clear the blocked gutter and rear hopper, inspect the bay roof, and carry out any necessary repairs to the roof, flashing, and brickwork. It advised the resident its contractors would attend her property on the morning of 27 May 2025 to carry out this work.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2025, to ask it to postpone the repairs as she had suffered an injury.
On 6 June 2025, the landlord completed works to the exterior of the resident’s property including cleaning the gutters and unblocking downpipes, repairing roof tiles, cleaning a drain gully, reconnecting waste pipes, and repointing round the bay window.
The landlord’s records of 11 June 2025, states that the resident refused all internal work to the property due to concerns about her health. The landlord’s records state that it offered the resident a temporary move (decant), but she refused this due to needing to be near to her relative to care for them.
On 16 June 2025, the resident told the landlord that all the drains and gutters were still blocked. She said that she had caught herself on scaffolding at the property as the landlord had not put protective padding on this.
The landlord’s internal correspondence states that it would carry out returfing of the communal garden in July 2025. The copy of this correspondence provided to the Ombudsman is undated.
On 25 June 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was sleeping on the settee as the floorboards in her bedroom were damp. She said everything in her bedroom was affected by white mould and that she had had to throw clothes away due to this.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the resident’s property on 25 July 2025. It recommended the following works:
1. Kitchen: upgrading the kitchen, moving the extractor fan due to water ingress, mould treatment to the external wall and overhauling the internal door.
2. Living room: arranging a specialist window contractor and removing the radiator and skirting board on the external wall to check for heat loss and installing 2 double plug sockets.
3. Bathroom: upgrading the bathroom, changing the location of the downflow heater, and overhauling the window.
4. Cellar: carrying out repairs to small holes.
5. Bedroom: removing the skirting to investigate potential rot and carrying out patch repairs to the ceiling.
On 7 August 2025, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the leak to the kitchen was due to an overflowing hopper which it had repaired. It said the cellar was not the cause of any damp in the property. On 14 August 2025 it said it had postponed the returfing of the communal garden as it needed to complete work to the hedges and fences first.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident told the landlord she had been reporting issues with her property for 35 years. She said that there had been 2 court cases relating to disrepair at the property. We cannot consider these matters in this assessment. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the events which occurred in the 12-month period preceding the resident’s complaint of 28 May 2024 onwards. However, it is understood that the repairs the resident raised with the landlord were longstanding issues, and the landlord was expected to take this into account in its response to the resident’s complaints.
The resident told the landlord she had seen a copy of a lease when she had been looking into buying the property, which included the use of the cellar. We cannot comment on provisions contained within the lease as the resident’s purchase of the property did not proceed. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not contain any clauses relating to the use of the cellar.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about her central heating, asbestos, slugs and woodlice, the radiator in her bedroom not working, and the scaffolding being dangerous. She has told the Ombudsman that she has had to throw away clothes due to mould in her bedroom. As these issues were not escalated via the landlord’s full complaint procedure, they have not been considered in this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. We will consider the issues the landlord has responded to in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses of June 2024 and January 2025.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the resident’s property including the roof, external drains, gutters and pipes. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow the landlord access to carry out inspections and repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not contain timescales for responding to repairs; however, good practice is that non-emergency repairs should be attended to within 28 days. It is recognised that some repairs may take longer than 28 days due to the need to erect scaffolding or order parts etc.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2. The Code became statutory at the start of April 2024 and all landlords which are members of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme are required to follow it.
The Code states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The Code also states that any remedy proposed by a landlord must be followed through to completion.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The resident reported to the landlord on 30 April 2024 that there were holes under the windows in her property. She raised this issue again on 2 July 2024. The landlord’s records of 2 September 2024, state that the windows at the resident property were due to be upgraded. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states that it would carry out repairs to the windows on 7 February 2025, however as noted above, the resident asked it to postpone all works to the interior of the property due to her health issues and her caring responsibilities. Whilst it is understandable that the resident may not be able to allow access for repairs for legitimate reasons such as illness and caring responsibilities, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays caused by a lack of access. It is recommended that the landlord carry out repairs to the windows subject to the resident allowing it access to her property. If the resident does not allow access for the landlord to carry out inspections and repairs, the landlord should follow its access policy.
In her complaint of 28 May 2024, the resident complained about one of the landlord’s members of staff. In its stage 1 complaint response of 13 June 2024, the landlord acted appropriately in apologising if the resident felt this person had not listened to her concerns and was pressuring her to accept an appointment that was not suitable for her. It acted reasonably in informing the resident that it had raised this incident with a manager and in reassuring her that neither the staff member she had complained about, nor the operative who had carried out initial works to her bathroom would deal with repairs at her property in future. We would not expect the landlord to disclose any disciplinary action which it may have taken against staff members as this is outside the complaints process and is confidential.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays in it completing the works to the bathroom. It acted reasonably in offering her £100 compensation for these delays and for the distress caused by its staff member’s behaviour. However, on 27 June 2024, the resident had to cancel an appointment the landlord had made to complete works to the bathroom as it told her it had mistakenly only booked a 1-hour appointment when in fact the repairs would take 4 hours to complete. This was a failing by the landlord which will have likely caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience, particularly as she had told it that she had had to pay someone to move her belongings from the bathroom in preparation for the further works.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions that she was not available for morning appointments due to being a carer for a relative. However, the landlord continued to book morning appointments. This was unreasonable as it meant the resident had to cancel and rebook appointments. The resident also told the landlord multiple times that she was not physically able to move heavy items of furniture prior to it carrying out inspections or repairs. She made it clear to the landlord she had no-one who could assist her with this. The landlord was aware that the resident had health issues. Therefore, if there were heavy items which it would have been difficult for the resident to move by herself, it could have considered asking her to sign a waiver to protect itself from any liability for damage and helped her to move any heavier items.
On 20 September 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak into the kitchen affecting the electrics. The landlord acted reasonably in investigating this issue and in advising the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, that it had not identified any leaks from supply pipes, waste pipes or appliances in the property above hers. It said that there may be water ingress on the pitched roof above her kitchen. On 6 June 2025, the landlord cleared a rainwater hopper that was causing water to enter the kitchen via the extractor fan. It is recommended that the landlord move the extractor fan in the kitchen, as set out in its inspection report of 25 July 2025, subject to the resident allowing it access.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord about damp in the cellar on several occasions. She said this was contributing to damp in her property. She said the landlord needed to ensure that the cellar was dry so that she could store belongings there. She said that the flooring the landlord had laid in the hallway had increased the damp in the cellar. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that although there was already insulation in the cellar it would carry out a further inspection. This was reasonable as the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the cellar was not contributing to damp in the resident’s property. The survey of the resident’s property the landlord carried out on 25 April 2025, confirmed that there was no rising or penetrating damp in the property and no damp coming from the cellar. The landlord was right to advise the resident that she should not keep any belongings in the cellar as her tenancy agreement did not include the use of the cellar. The landlord is not obliged to ensure that the cellar is suitable for storage as it is not considered to be part of the living space in the property, although the resident has access to it.
The resident raised the issue of damp at her property on several occasions including in her stage 2 complaint of 3 October 2024. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it would carry out a damp and mould inspection of her property on 24 January 2025. On 20 January 2025, the resident asked the landlord to postpone this inspection. As noted above, the resident cancelled further appointments to carry out inspections and repairs between February and April 2025. The landlord’s inspection of 25 July 2025 advised mould treatment to the kitchen and the removal of the radiator and skirting board in the living room to check for areas of heat loss. It is recommended that the landlord carry out these works subject to the resident allowing it access.
The landlord acted reasonably in clearing a gully, gutters and a downpipe on 13 and 15 November 2024. However, its contractor was unable to carry out further works to clear the drains on 19 November 2024 due to not being able to gain access. It would have been necessary for the landlord to inspect both the inside and outside of the resident’s property for it to establish what issues may be contributing to any damp at the property. As noted above, between February and April 2025, the resident asked the landlord to postpone inspections and repairs, therefore any delays in the landlord carrying out works to remedy damp at the property during this period, were outside of its control. On 6 June 2025, the landlord cleaned the gutters and a drain gully, unblocked downpipes, repaired roof tiles, reconnected waste pipes, and repointed around a bay window. On 16 June 2025, the resident told the landlord that drains and gutters were still blocked. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a further inspection of the drains and gutters to establish whether it needs to carry out any further works to unblock these.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it would investigate her concerns about rubbish and glass being left there. The landlord’s records show that it had initially planned to re-turf the communal garden in July 2025, however it has told the Ombudsman that it has postponed this work as it needs to carry out hedge and fencing works first. This was a reasonable explanation for the delay. However, we recommend that the landlord writes to the resident to set out the estimated date it will carry out these works.
The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it could not consider any health-related problems under its complaints process. The landlord advised the resident she could submit a personal injury claim to its liability insurers should she wish to do so. This was appropriate, as matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. We would not comment on the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made, as it is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £1705 compensation. This offer by the landlord is reasonable and more than the Ombudsman would have awarded in this case. However, as set out above, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states the landlord must follow through on any remedy it offers. Therefore, having made this offer, the landlord should pay the resident the £1705 compensation it has offered her. As the landlord has offered reasonable compensation to the resident, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the landlord pays the resident this compensation, if it has not done so already.
As noted above, the resident asked the landlord to postpone works to her property several times. It was reasonable for the landlord to write to the resident to explain the importance of her allowing access and offering her reassurance that it will support her through the process of it carrying out the necessary works. It is recommended that the landlord follows its access procedure, if the resident does not allow it access to complete the repairs. The landlord previously offered the resident a temporary move (decant). If the landlord considers that a decant is necessary for it to carry out the repairs to the resident’s property, it should follow its decant procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway

In her stage 2 complaint, the resident told the landlord that the vinyl flooring it had installed in the communal hallway was noisy. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident the vinyl flooring in the communal area was fit for purpose and met its standards. It said it did not deem the noise from the communal area to be excessive. This was a reasonable response as noise from day-to-day activities such as people going in and out of their property would not constitute anti-social behaviour or a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord is not required to change the flooring in the hallway.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 30 April 2024 that the operative it sent to undertake works to her bathroom had attended without a prior appointment. She also said the work carried out was poor. The landlord responded the same day to say it had escalated her concerns about the poor workmanship in the bathroom to a manager. However, the resident had made a clear expression of dissatisfaction, which met the definition of a complaint, as set out in both the landlord’s complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to respond formally to this complaint and issue a stage 1 complaint response within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The fact that it did not do so led to a delay in the landlord addressing these concerns as the resident had to raise the issues again in her complaint of 28 May 2024, which will have likely caused her time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 28 May 2024 on 13 June 2024. This was reasonable and within the timescales set out in the Code for responding to stage 1 complaints.
On 2 July 2024, the resident raised several further concerns with the landlord including, drainage issues in the cellar, crumbling mortar between bricks, slugs and woodlice eating her clothes,gaps around the windows, blocked guttering and drains, asbestos, and the radiator in her bedroom not working. The landlord informed the resident that it would add these issues to her complaint. The landlord should have issued a new stage 1 complaint response within the timescales set by the Ombudsman for responding to stage 1 complaints, therefore. The fact that it did not do so was a failing which led to lengthy delays in it answering these concerns.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 3 October 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 15 January 2024 which was over 2 months outside of the Ombudsman’s timescales for landlords responding to stage 2 complaints.
The landlord did not address the concerns the resident raised in her stage 2 complaint of 3 October 2024 about the front door not being secure, the noise from the upstairs flat, and the communal staircase being dangerous. This was unreasonable. The Code, set out above, states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord is ordered to issue a Stage 1 complaint response to these issues.
The landlord has offered the resident £150 compensation for its errors in its handling of the associated complaint as part of the total compensation it has offered the resident. The overall compensation of £1705 offered by the landlord is reasonable and is sufficient compensation for the effect of its errors in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which resolves the complaint about its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property, satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to issue a stage 1 complaint to the following issues, the front door not being secure, the noise from the flat above, and the communal staircase being dangerous, within 15 working days of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Inspects all the windows at the resident’s property and carries out any necessary repairs subject to the resident allowing it access.
2. Moves the extractor fan and carries out mould treatment in the kitchen and heat loss checks in the living room, subject to the resident allowing it access.
3. Inspects the drains and gutters and carries out further work to clear these if necessary.
4. Sets out to the resident the estimated date it will clear the rubbish and glass in the communal garden.
5. Follows its access procedure, if the resident does not allow it access to complete repairs. If the landlord considers that a decant is necessary for it to carry out the repairs to the resident’s property, it should follow its decant procedure.