Midland Heart Limited (202438820)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in his property in January 2024. He then raised a complaint in October 2024 as he was frustrated that it had not been resolved. He felt his windows and doors were a contributing factor. The landlord issued its final complaint response in April 2025. The resident remains dissatisfied with the handling of the repairs and the compensation offered by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and concerns about windows and doors.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and concerns about windows and doors.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for completing day-to-day repairs. However, it says the landlord will set target times which take account of the danger to the health, safety and security of the customer and/or the building.
5. On 17 January 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in his home. He also told the landlord that the back door was letting in water at the bottom and there was a draught from the side. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report.
6. The resident reported the same issues again in March, May, July, August and December 2024. While the landlord responded to each report, it did not take a joined-up approach to investigating the damp and mould. Between January 2024 and April 2025, it completed 3 inspections and multiple mould washes.
7. It was positive that the landlord completed regular mould washes at the property to mitigate the risks associated with living with damp and mould. However, it treated the damp and mould and the resident’s concerns about poorly fitted windows and doors as separate issues. This prevented a thorough investigation of the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It also indicated poor internal record keeping and communication which may have contributed to the delays.
8. Although the landlord carried out inspections and repairs, avoidable delays contributed to the overall time taken for the repairs to be completed. Following its inspection on 28 August 2024, it identified that the windows and doors required adjustment but did not raise the repair order until 20 September 2024, almost a month later. The repair was completed on 17 October 2024. The resident repeatedly chased updates during this period, causing frustration and unnecessary time and trouble. We have seen no evidence that the delay was unavoidable.
9. Following the works in October 2024, the resident continued to report issues with the doors and windows not being fitted correctly and letting in water and draughts. The landlord completed a further inspection in December 2024. It is unclear what the outcome of this inspection was. However, it appears that the landlord did not take reasonable action to resolve the issues after its December 2024 inspection. This meant that the resident was left to chase again for updates. No further action was taken regarding the windows and doors until he escalated his complaint to stage 2 in April 2025.
10. The resident had reported damp and mould, and concerns about poorly fitted windows and doors, for 15 months before the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This delay exceeded reasonable timescales to address damp and mould risks and the resulting living conditions. It also represented a departure from the landlord’s repairs policy.
11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to address them. It accepted that repairs had been delayed, apologised for not considering the impact on the resident, and confirmed it would replace the windows and doors. Due to its previous failings, it agreed to fast-track the work and arrange an appointment for May 2025, rather than follow the usual 1-year timeframe.
12. The landlord also addressed the resident’s request for reimbursement for belongings damaged by damp and mould. The resident provided receipts showing damage to curtains that cost £1,000. The landlord offered £300, stating it had applied depreciation as the curtains were around 7 years old. However, it did not explain how it calculated this amount or what evidence it relied on. We have ordered the landlord to provide a breakdown of its calculation. If it cannot do so, it must reconsider the offer and provide the resident with the evidence supporting its decision.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £450 in compensation for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused. This was in line with its compensation policy for moderate failures and our compensation guidance for failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. Given the circumstances of the case, the offer was proportionate at the time.
14. However, this offer was made in April 2025. Given that the windows and door replacement were not completed for another 5 months, in September 2025, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to monitor the repairs until completion and review its compensation offer at that time. Having considered the additional delays, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100, in line with our compensation guidance.

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.