Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Midland Heart Limited (202440384)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440384

Midland Heart Limited

25 September 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. damp and mould.
    2. a pest infestation.
    3. the void condition of the property.
    4. outstanding repairs in the property including a leak, flooring and ceiling.
    5. heat retention in the property and resulting high energy bills.
    6. damages to personal property.
    7. a request to be rehoused or offered alternative accommodation.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated May 2024. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat occupied by the resident and her children. The landlord was informed of health vulnerabilities in the household at the time the complaint was raised.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 6 January 2025. She said:
    1. after previous repairs by the landlord, damp had returned causing health problems for the resident and her family.
    2. the property suffered poor heat retention, and the bathroom was too cold to use safely. This led to high energy bills. She wanted support to address the cost of increased bills and damaged flooring caused by the damp.
    3. an ongoing mouse infestation created unhygienic and unsafe living conditions. She wanted the infestation to be addressed professionally and for the landlord to review the suitability of the property for habitation.
    4. a previous tenant said that the issues were known to the landlord before the resident moved in. She wanted a thorough investigation into the damp and structural issues, with appropriate repairs carried out.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2025. It said:
    1. it treated damp in the property in November 2024. It was made aware the damp had returned on 6 January 2025 and would carry out a thorough inspection to arrange further damp and mould remedial works.
    2. the resident reported a mouse infestation on 6 January 2025. She advised on 2 days later that prior to the winter period, she had not seen any signs of mice. There was no historic evidence of issues concerning mice at the property. It would monitor to ensure it implemented appropriate pest control.
    3. the resident reported a stain on the bathroom ceiling on 6 January 2025. It attended on 14 January 2025 and identified that the issue was caused by a neighbour. The resident refused for any remedial works to be carried out.
    4. as per the resident’s section 11 claim, it recognised she had raised further repair issues with the windows. It was also arranging a flooring inspection.
    5. on 8 January 2025 the resident reported heating issues, high energy bills and poor insulation. An EPC from 8 April 2024 gave a D rating and nothing required attention. It offered a referral for money advice and support.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 January 2025. She wanted details of how and when the landlord would inspect her property. She wanted a lasting solution to treat the damp, action for the infestation and transparency of the property’s history of issues. She wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation and compensation for the increased bills and damages.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2025. It said that the resident confirmed the property was in a satisfactory condition prior to moving in. It carried out an inspection on 9 April 2024 which showed no signs of damp or mould. After receiving a section 11 claim, it inspected again on 3 February 2025 and was in the process of arranging repairs.
  6. The landlord advised that any medical or injury related issues would be signposted to insurers and provided its insurance details. It also provided information on searching for a new property, registering on the local authority housing list and mutual exchanges. It said the resident refused access to carry out repairs in January and February 2025. There were no pest reports by the previous tenant and no issues with the insulation on 3 February 2025.
  7. The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 5 March 2025. It apologised that it had failed to respond to photos the resident sent on 9 February 2025 showing damage to her ceiling. The landlord offered £250 compensation for its poor communication and poor handling of her concerns.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states:

“41. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c. concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.

  1. The resident issued a claim at court on 27 May 2025. Having considered the issued claim against the landlord, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the matters raised in the substantive complaint are the subject of court proceedings. The complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and is not one we can investigate.
  2. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

e. concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.

  1. If there are any elements of the substantive complaint that the resident had not included in the issued claim, the Ombudsman is satisfied that she has had the opportunity to raise these as part of the legal proceedings, in accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme.
  2. The Ombudsman has determined that the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to intervene on the resident’s complaints about the matters listed in paragraph 1(a)-(g) above. This is because legal proceedings have been issued on the same matters. This is in accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme.