Muir Group Housing Association Limited (202432914)

Decision
Case ID	202432914
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Muir Group Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. In her property there was a leak from an immersion tank. The resident reported issues with damp and mould after the leak was fixed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents.
   1. Reports of a leak from the immersion tank.
   2. Reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the immersion tank.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the immersion tank.

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings in the complaint response and offered proportionate compensation. The landlord took appropriate action to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings

6. The landlord responded in line with its policy to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It made reasonable attempts to complete the works it identified were needed to treat the property for damp and mould. Its inability to complete the works has in most part been because the resident has not provided access to the property.
7. The landlord appropriately directed the resident to make a claim for damaged belongings through her content’s insurer. As part of its stage 2 response and in an effort to resolve the dispute, it said it would reassess if compensation could be appropriate in the circumstances, despite there being no reliable evidence which supported the damage was caused or made worse by a landlord failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

8. The landlord took too long to respond to the complaint. It acknowledged its failing and offered compensation which we are satisfied was reasonable and has satisfactorily resolved the 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.

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident compensation totalling £935 as agreed in its complaint responses and additional offer made on 12 August 2025. This breaks down as £635 and £50 redecoration vouchers for its response to the leak and £250 for its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her immersion tank and its complaint handling, is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 23 March 2023 and 23 October 2023.	The resident reported 5 faults with her heating system during this period, which included a loss of hot water and a leak from the immersion tank. The landlord attended the property following each report.
23 October 2024.	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the leak with the immersion heater had been fixed, but an engineer had told her it was never correctly repaired despite several visits. The resident complained the leak had caused damp and mould in her property and she had not decorated due to this.
6 November 2024.	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged previous failings with its repair handling. However, it could not confirm the reliability of what the resident had said she was told by the engineer. It said it would contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused. It offered the resident £200 compensation and a £50 B&Q voucher towards the cost of redecorating.
Between 12 November 2024 and 30 November 2024	The resident sent several emails escalating her complaint with the landlord. She complained the leak had caused a significant increase in her water bills. She said the leak had caused mould, which had damaged her carpets, furniture, clothing, and food. The resident requested the landlord cover the cost of items damaged during the previous 18-months due to delay to fix the leak.
February to June 2025	The resident contacted us in February 2025 as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its stage 2 complaint response. We contacted the landlord again in June 2025 to respond to the resident’s complaint.
30 June 2025.	The landlord provided its final complaint response. It provided a timeline of the repair history for the heating system. It explained there were delays in it completing repairs in March 2023 and September 2024 due to access issues. It acknowledged it should have tried harder to arrange access to repair the leak. The landlord explained it had completed a damp and mould inspection in November 2024. It said it tried to complete works related to damp and mould between December 2024 and May 2025, but the resident did not allow it access to the property to complete repairs.   The landlord offered the resident increased compensation of £750. This broke down as £450 for the leak, plus £50 redecoration vouchers, plus £250 for complaint handling. It said it wanted to arrange a home visit to discuss arrangements for it to get access to complete the works.
12 August 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident after it completed a home visit on 25 July 2025. It thanked for her for sharing the details of her mental health condition. It clarified its understanding from the meeting, that the resident told it she had denied access to her home on advice of her solicitor. The landlord explained if it completed repairs it would not affect her legal rights. The landlord asked for access to complete repairs over 3 visits in August 2025 and explained what actions it would take during each visit. It increased its offer of compensation to a total amount of £935. This breaks down to £635 for its handling of the leak, plus £50 in decorating vouchers and £250 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould issue and said the leak was ongoing.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the immersion tank.
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. The evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of issues with her heating system between March 2023 and October 2023. It identified the need for emergency appointments where necessary, and in so doing responded within 24 hours in line with its policy. On the occasions it was able to gain access, the evidence shows it completed routine repairs within the timescale of its policy. The evidence shows the landlord could not gain access on 30 March 2023 to investigate a leak from the immersion tank. However, it did not follow up on the no access appointment until the resident reported the issue again on 16 May 2023.
10. The resident complained to the landlord that it had failed to properly fix the leak between March 2023 and October 2024. The resident based her complaint on comments she said were made to her by an engineer. We have seen no evidence to substantiate there was an unresolved leak from the immersion tank between May 2023 and September 2024 which the landlord had failed to respond to. There were no reports of any leaks or faults with the heating system made to the landlord between 31 May 2023 and 19 September 2024. Therefore, if a leak was present to the extent suggested by the resident, the landlord did not have opportunity to put right any issues during this period, as it was not made aware of a problem.
11. When the landlord was able to inspect the issue, it identified the leak had damaged the wooden area below the immersion tank. There is no evidence the leak caused any additional damage to the resident’s property.
12. The evidence does not indicate any clear failings in the steps the landlord took, except those outlined above. Nonetheless, the landlord believed it could have done better to fix the immersion heater sooner and recognised the impact on the resident from the repeat appointments. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise and offer compensation.
13. The landlord acknowledged there were delays at the start of the process in its complaint responses which concluded with its stage 2 response on 30 June 2025. It also acknowledged there was a delay to arrange a follow up repair after it fixed a containable leak on 25 September 2024. It offered £450 compensation, plus £50 in vouchers for redecoration. It gave details which explained the September delay. It said it contacted the resident 3 working days outside of its policy timescale on 3 October 2024. It then took until 23 October 2024 to complete the necessary repairs. It explained this was because there were 2 no access appointments during this period.
14. After the landlord’s complaint processes, it conducted a home visit 25 July 2025 to discuss the ongoing situation with the resident. Following the visit, it increased its compensation offer for the leak to £635, plus the £50 redecoration voucher.
15. We encourage landlords to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. In this instance, the landlord’s increased offer of compensation after the complaints process was clearly a response to new information following its visit to the resident’s property and we assess this was not an attempt to undermine the 2 stage complaints process or a reaction to the matter being referred to us.
16. Its increased compensation offer included £35 towards the cost of additional water usage. The landlord decided to offer this without receiving any supporting information linked to bills which was fair as a means to attempt to resolve the dispute.
17. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord’s compensation of £685 and actions to resolve the complaint were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
18. When assessed against our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord has made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings we have identified by our investigation and has put things right. This leads to our determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation for damaged belongings
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it aims to complete an inspection within 2 weeks of a report. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 25 October 2024. The landlord tried to complete an inspection on 1 November 2024, but it was not given access by the resident. Its attempted response was in line with the timescales sets out in its policy. The landlord subsequently completed an inspection on 15 November 2024. It recorded there was a low-level outbreak of damp and mould, which it considered was caused by condensation due to high humidity levels in all rooms.
20. The evidence shows the landlord identified several repairs were necessary to combat the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It attempted to arrange appointments to carry out the repairs in December 2024, but the resident cancelled the appointment arranged for personal reasons. Following this, the landlord offered appointments in January 2025 and made six further attempts to arrange appointments 2025. These attempts included it turning up at the property without an appointment to attempt to complete repairs. Due to being unable to arrange appointments in advance. The landlord’s records show the resident asked for the repairs to be put on hold in February 2025 due to her health before she told the landlord in May 2025 that she would continue to refuse access until it had resolved her complaint.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained the attempts it had made to complete the repairs to tackle the damp and mould. It told the resident it was keen to rebuild their relationship and asked to complete a home visit to assess the current condition of the property and the repairs it needed to do.
22. The evidence shows the landlord attended on 25 July 2025. Following this, it wrote to the resident offering further support and a plan to complete the outstanding repairs in August 2025. The landlord told us the resident did not let it enter the property in August 2025, and it has been unable to arrange access despite 6 further attempts since 17 September 2025. It has told us it is considering legal action as a means to gain access.
23. When she escalated her complaint in November 2024, the resident complained damp and mould had damaged her belongings. On 15 November 2024, the landlord told the resident a claim for damaged items was likely to be dealt with by insurers and not its complaint process. The landlord has since told the resident that if it could assess the damp and mould again, it would assess the impact it was likely to have had upon the items the resident stated were damaged. The landlord stated this would inform whether it was likely to offer compensation for the damage.
24. The evidence shows the landlord was not aware of any issues with damp and mould at the resident’s property until October 2024. From the point it was made aware, it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. It has made many attempts to get into the property and conduct the necessary works to make the situation better for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to insurers to make a claim for damage to possessions which she said had been caused by the damp and mould. This was because there is no evidence to suggest the damage reported by the resident was caused by a failure to act and treat the damp and mould by the landlord. Its subsequent offer to re-assess the situation to ascertain if compensation for damaged items was appropriate and was beyond what it was obliged to do in the circumstances.
25. We have not identified any failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process within the timescales of its policy. However, it took the landlord 158 working to respond at stage 2. This was considerably outside the 20-day working timescale provided by its policy. During this time, the resident had to chase the landlord for a response and seek assistance from us. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble.
27. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint within a reasonable time. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident compensation of £250. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its complaint response. Its compensation offer of £250 was in line with an amount which would be calculated using our remedies guidance where there was a failure that adversely impacted the resident. The amount offered by the landlord reasonably reflected the failing that resulted from the delay in its final response and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of the effect of its failings on the resident. We consider the compensation offered was appropriate and leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord made an offer which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. We have seen that the landlord kept records of contact made with the resident and repair logs. We have identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

29. The landlord demonstrated effective and proactive communication with the resident outside of the specific communication failures identified above. It should continue to attempt to gain access to the property through consent by using effective communication alongside the legal options available to it.