Midland Heart Limited (202431475)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns with a leak from the property above which caused staining on his kitchen ceiling. He also reported damp and mould throughout his property. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to resolve both concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of:
   1. Leaks from the property above.
   2. Damp and mould.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks from the property above.
   2. Reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks from the property above

5. The landlord acknowledged failings in its approach to accessing the neighbour’s property to resolve the leak. It appropriately offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and its offer was proportionate to reflect the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord acknowledged the significant delay in both inspecting the property and completing the repairs, causing it to repeat the CCTV survey. It offered compensation to reflect the impact caused. It also noted difficulties faced with the resident not allowing access to the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

7. The landlord appropriately acknowledged it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint, causing delays in responding at stage 2. However, it failed to clearly explain how it calculated the compensation following the resident’s concerns and did not respond to part of his complaint.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

8. The landlord acknowledged it did not follow its procedure to gain access to the neighbour’s property to resolve the leak. This caused staining to the resident’s ceilings and considerable distress and inconvenience. There were several failings in the landlord’s overall response to the situation. Including:
   1. The resident reported a leak in May 2023, but the landlord did not take proactive steps to access the property above to find the source of the leak.
   2. Following further reports in November 2023, the landlord attempted an emergency inspection of the neighbour’s property within 24 hours, in line with its service standards, but could not gain access. It then took 6 days to inspect the flat, where it resealed the bath, which it believed caused the leak.
   3. After the leak returned on 30 November 2023, the landlord inspected the property within 24 hours, in line with its service standards. However, the landlord then struggled to access the above property to install new pipework under the floorboards to resolve the leak. The landlord attempted access on 3 occasions before completing the repair on 8 February 2024. While the resident later told us the leak continued after this, there is no evidence he reported further leaks to the landlord after this date.
9. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings in responding to the reports of a leak. It recognised it should have done more to resolve this. This showed it considered its actions and reflected on how it could improve this going forward.
10. The landlord’s records show it isolated the bathroom light due to the leaks in May 2023. The resident reported it still did not work in January 2024. The landlord should have managed the leak appropriately to minimise the time he was without a functioning light. Yet it is unclear if (or when) the landlord resolved this. When considering this, we have noted that the resident later did not provide access for various related repairs, including redecorating the ceilings after resolving the leak in February 2024. We cannot establish whether reinstating the light formed past of these repairs; however, we have made a recommendation related to this.
11. The landlord offered £429 compensation for the delays in repairing the leak and its poor communication throughout this time. The overall offer was in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident, reflecting the distress and inconvenience caused to him. As such, the apology and compensation together amount to reasonable redress.

12. The resident first reported damp and mould on 17 November 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it must complete a mould wash within 14 days, which it did on 30 November 2023. The policy then states if needed, it must arrange a surveyor’s inspection within a further 7 days. It booked this for 7 December 2023, however, it is unclear why this did not go ahead. It therefore mismanaged the resident’s expectations and prolonged the time he experienced damp and mould for, which was a failing. It was appropriate for it to later acknowledge the 2-month delay in inspecting the damp and mould, in January 2024.
13. The inspection identified damp and mould throughout the property, particularly at lower levels. The recommendations included a CCTV survey of the drains, checks to the roof and chimney, and overhauling the rear door. While the landlord is not obligated to act on every recommendation made, we reasonably expect it to demonstrate it had considered the findings. However, there is no evidence that it considered the roof and chimney or the door recommendations. This was a shortcoming in the circumstances.
14. In the initial response, the landlord said it believed the property had rising damp, so it needed to survey the drains before completing any repairs. It did this in February 2024, but it failed to arrange the repairs identified to remove roots from the drains and to clear the guttering. This meant it had to repeat the survey in October 2024 to check the issue had not worsened during the previous 8 months. Its poor handling of the repairs therefore meant the resident experienced the damp and mould for a prolonged period, causing him further distress and inconvenience.
15. During this time, the property condition deteriorated, with visible damp and mould, including bubbled plaster. The landlord tried to complete repairs, but the resident said he would not allow access. When it arranged appointments, he did not let operatives in to complete the works. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow reasonable access for repairs. However, the landlord acknowledged it should have done more to arrange the works. It was appropriate for it to reflect on what happened and try to resolve this.
16. In the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged significant delays in completing the initial damp and mould inspection and the later repairs. It appropriately reflected on its handling, especially given the impact of the 2-month delay to inspect the property. It offered £426 compensation for its failings, which was broadly in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident. We consider this was an appropriate amount to put right the failings which had occurred up to that point, balanced with its efforts to gain access to the property.
17. After issuing the final response and repeating the CCTV survey in October 2024, the landlord raised repairs to resolve the damp and mould. However, the resident did not allow access for this despite the landlord’s multiple attempts. As such, the fact the repairs remained outstanding at this time was not as the result of a failing by the landlord. Although we are not investigating events after the complaints process ended, it is important to note the landlord later reviewed its handling of the reports. It offered a further £650 compensation to reflect his experience up to June 2025.
18. If the resident remains unhappy with this offer, or events that occurred after the complaints process ended, he may wish to raise this as a new complaint to the landlord.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The landlord responded to the initial complaint within the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. However, it later acknowledged it missed the escalation request.
21. The Code states landlords must escalate a complaint to stage 2 if a resident expresses dissatisfaction following the initial response. Yet the landlord did not do this, and instead it incorrectly logged a new stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2024. It then did not respond within its 10-working day timescale, causing a one and a half-month delay in recognising it needed to instead escalate this to stage 2. This was a failing.
22. After logging the escalation request on 15 July 2024, the landlord took a further 53 working days to respond at stage 2, significantly beyond its 20-working day target. It was appropriate for it to recognise the delays and poor complaint handling in the final response.
23. The Code also requires landlords to respond to all points raised in the complaint. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concern that his bathroom light remained not working after it isolated this due to the leak. It therefore missed an opportunity to investigate this and put this right. As noted earlier, we have made a relevant recommendation regarding this failing.
24. Additionally, after receiving the initial response, the resident told the landlord he would not allow access for the repairs unless it increased the compensation. He was unhappy that it had calculated the original offer up to 8 February 2024, rather than the date it would resolve the damp and mould.
25. The landlord should reasonably have explained at the earliest opportunity that it calculated the compensation based on the date it would resolve the leak by. It should have also escalated the resident’s concerns about further compensation for the damp and mould works. It is concerning that it did not do so as this may have helped manage the access issues it later faced in completing the repairs.
26. The landlord offered £150 for the delays in its complaint handling. While appropriate, it did not acknowledge the additional failings we have identified. As such, it has not put this right for the resident. We have therefore found service failure, reflecting the impact caused by not addressing his concerns with the bathroom light and its poor communication about the compensation offered at stage 1.

Learning

27. The landlord’s review of its handling was mostly thorough, showing its commitment to putting things right and learning from its mistakes. It also made proportionate offers of compensation in doing so, in line with our remedies guidance.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should consider why it logged a new complaint instead of escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, and whether its record keeping processes impacted this.

Communication

29. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication and offered proportionate compensation to put this right. However, it missed opportunities to explain how it calculated the compensation offer clearly following the resident’s concerns. This understandably caused him confusion and caused access issues.