Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd (202510667)

Decision
Case ID	202510667
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property with her children since October 2024. She said she reported several repair issues to the landlord since January 2025 and the landlord did not address them within a reasonable timeframe.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
3. This investigation will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
5. There was 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 the repairs to the property.

6. The landlord did not remedy several repairs in line with its policy timeframes. It acknowledged this failure but did not provide an appropriate remedy which recognised the impact caused to the resident and put things right.

Complaint handling

7. The stage 1 response was not issued in accordance with the landlord’s policy. It did not acknowledge this failing or take matters to put things right for the resident.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any amount previously offered as part of its complaints process (£110) which it has already paid.	No later than 15 December 2025
2	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps by the due date to complete repairs to: The water damage in the downstairs bathroom that occurred following the leak. The lack of hot water from the basin tap in the downstairs bathroom.   If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 15 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 January – 17 January 2025	The resident reported the following issues to the landlord: Weeds penetrated the porch floor tiles, causing cracks in the tiles. No hot water from the basin tap in the downstairs bathroom. An external pipe had burst causing flooding to the garden. The carpet in the property was in a poor condition. There were windows with blown double glazing units in various rooms.
17 March 2025	The resident submitted a complaint and said she reported several issues to the landlord since January. As well as the above issues, she said she reported: A leak from the upstairs bathroom penetrated the downstairs bathroom, passing through the light fitting and causing damage to the flooring and decorative finishes. The basin in the downstairs bathroom was not secured to the wall. A broken radiator thermostat. 2 of the toilets in the property were not secured to the floor.   In addition the resident reported she had been without heating and hot water since the previous week.
29 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said its records showed the resident reported the issues to it in March 2025. It partially upheld the complaint on the basis there were delays in the repairs to: The leak from the bath. The radiator thermostat. The toilets. The landlord offered the resident £60 in recognition of the delays. It also agreed to complete a survey of the damage to the downstairs bathroom once the bath leak was rectified.   The landlord stated the remaining repairs were either completed by it within its policy timeframes or still within target for completion. It acknowledged the resident said she reported the repairs in January 2025 but said it found no evidence to support this.   The landlord stated the resident had 28 days from the start of her tenancy to request carpet removal. It said it found no evidence of such a request and therefore considered the removal of the carpet to be the resident’s responsibility.
7 May 2025	The resident raised a stage 2 complaint. She said she reported the repair issues to the landlord between 11 January and 9 February 2025. She provided the landlord with evidence of the repair reports she submitted to it in January 2025. The resident said the compensation the landlord offered was inadequate given the impact of the unresolved repair issues.
21 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the complaint. It confirmed on review of the evidence the resident submitted, the evidence showed she reported the following repairs in January 2025: No hot water from the basin tap. Issues with the porch flooring. In addition to the delays acknowledged in its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that there had also been delays in addressing these specific repairs. It maintained the accuracy of stage 1 findings about the remainder of the reported repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us and stated that, although the landlord had completed some of the repairs, it took a significant amount of time to do so. She also reported that some repairs remained outstanding. The resident said she felt the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the repair issues had on her household.

 

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 handling of repairs in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The repair to the porch flooring.

8. The resident reported the repair to the landlord on 7 January 2025. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 March 2025 and recommended follow on works. The landlord completed the repair on 17 June 2025.
9. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the repair within the timeframes set out in its policy. It took 5 months to complete the repair which was unreasonable.
10. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold the complaint regarding the repair. It said it believed the issue was still within the required timeframe for completion. However, the resident provided evidence which showed she had reported the issue on 7 January 2025, which contradicted the landlord’s position. On receipt of his evidence at stage 2, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it did not complete the repair within its policy timeframe.
11. While the landlord apologised and acknowledged the delay in addressing the repair, it failed to provide clarity on when it would complete this. At the time of its stage 2 response, the resident had already been waiting 4 months for the repair. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not to provide an indication of when it would complete the repair in its response.

The repair to the lack of hot water to the basin tap.

12. The resident reported the lack of water from the basin tap, to the landlord on 7 January 2025.
13. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it stated its records showed the resident reported the repair on 17 March 2025. It acknowledged it should have completed the repair within 28 working days of this date and it did not. It agreed to instruct a contractor to contact the resident with an appointment and there is evidence its contractor attended and sent the landlord a quotation for the relevant work.
14. When the resident escalated her complaint to and provided evidence she reported the issue in January 2025, the landlord acknowledged the evidence contradicted its stage 1 finding.
15. Our assessment found that the landlord did not provide the resident with a reasonable resolution despite acknowledging the delay since January 2025. The evidence confirms the repair remained outstanding, and although the landlord obtained a quotation, there is no evidence it later completed the work. Furthermore, in its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the repair was outstanding but failed to provide any indication to the resident of when it would complete the repair. The resident has also made us aware at the start of this investigation the lack of hot water to the tap remains outstanding. Therefore we have made an order in relation to this.

The repair to the external water pipe.  

16. On 11 January 2025, the resident reported that an external pipe had burst, causing flooding in the back garden. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day and repaired the damaged section of pipework.
17. The landlord did not find a service failure in its handling of this repair during its investigation of the resident’s complaint. This finding is supported by the evidence, which shows the landlord completed the repair within a day, thus meeting the response time for urgent repairs as set out in its policy.

The landlord’s response to the report about the condition of the carpet.

18. On 17 January 2025 the resident reported the downstairs carpet was in poor condition. She stated she had raised concerns about the carpet a week after moving in and had sent follow up emails. However, other than the report on 17 January 2025, we have seen no record of an earlier report from the resident about this issue. The landlord did not uphold this complaint as it did not find evidence the resident had requested the removal of the carpet within 28 days of the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the removal of the carpets would fall within the resident’s responsibility.
19. The landlord’s response was in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, which states that it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain, repair, and correctly dispose of gifted items, such as carpets.

The repair to the windows.

20. The resident reported issues with the windows on 7 January 2025. The landlord did not raise an order until 17 March 2025, following receipt of the resident’s complaint. Its contractor attended on 20 March 2025 and confirmed that several window units had blown.
21. In the landlord’s complaint response, the landlord stated it could not find any record of the resident reporting an issue with the windows in January 2025. However, the resident has provided us with evidence of her repair report from January 2025.
22. The landlord concluded in response to the complaint, it was still outstanding however, still within its target timeframe so it did not find a failure. However the landlord’s assessment was based on incomplete records. The evidence demonstrates by the time the landlord issued its final response, the window repair had been outstanding for 94 working days since the resident’s report. There was therefore a failure by the landlord to complete the repair within its policy timeframe which it failed to recognise within its investigation.
23. Furthermore the landlord failed to address the windows within a reasonable time following its final response dated 21 May 2025. It did not complete the repair to the windows until October 2025, almost 5 months after its response and 9 months after the resident’s report.

The repair to the leak in the bathroom and the associated repairs.

24. The resident said she reported a leak into the downstairs bathroom, originating from the bathroom upstairs, on 9 February 2025. However, there is no evidence of this report.   Based on the available evidence, we are unable to determine which party’s account is accurate. This element of our investigation has focused on assessing how the landlord responded following the resident’s report of the leak on 17 March 2025, as this is the first record of her report.
25. Following the resident’s report on 17 March 2025, the landlord attended to investigate the leak the next day. It subsequently completed a temporary repair on 24 April 2025 before it completed the permanent repair to the leak on 30 April 2025.
26. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in it addressing the repair. It agreed to arrange a survey to assess the water damage once it resolved the leak. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to repair the leak within the timeframe for urgent repairs set out in its policy. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an apology and agree to assess the damage once it repaired the leak.
27.  Although the landlord acknowledged in its initial response there had been a delay in addressing the repair, it but did not provide the resident with a timeframe for when it would address the leak. In addition, the landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint included inaccurate information about the repair. It stated the repair was raised on 29 April 2025, whereas records show it raised the repair on 17 March 2025.This inaccuracy did not impact the overall outcome to the complaint, as the landlord had already recognised there was a delay. It does indicate a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
28. The landlord’s repair records show the landlord raised an order on 21 May 2025 for its contractor to attend and provide a quote to remedy the water damage to the bathroom ceiling. On 12 June 2025, the landlord raised a repair for the bathroom light. There is evidence the landlord replaced the light following this however, there is no evidence of any work to address the water damage to the walls, ceilings and warped flooring.
29. In addition, the resident reported water penetrating the bathroom light on 17 March 2025, yet the landlord did not arrange an interim repair to make the light safe while the leak persisted. This was unreasonable given the safety risk of the water penetrating through the electric fixture. After the landlord repaired the leak on 30 April 2025, it did not repair the light until sometime in June 2025. This demonstrates the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate risk and complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
30. The landlord has provided us with evidence of a mould treatment it completed in June 2025. However the evidence indicates this mould treatment was associated with a leak the resident reported in 1 of the bedrooms from the roof, which was a separate issue to the leak into the downstairs bathroom.
31. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint response that it had failed to respond to the leak within the timeframes set out in its policy. However there was a failure by the landlord as it arranged a survey to assess the damage however, there is no evidence it followed through with completing the necessary work in a reasonable time.
32. The resident confirmed the landlord repaired the light. However, she said the water damage to the ceiling and flooring remains outstanding, despite the landlord raising an inspection for this on 21 May 2025. Accordingly, we have made an order for the landlord to complete the necessary repairs to the water damage in the bathroom.

The repair to the unsecure sink

33. The resident said in her complaint that she reported the unsecure sink and toilets to the landlord, in January 2025. However, there is no evidence of these reports. Based on the available evidence, we are unable to determine which party’s account is accurate.
34. This element of our investigation has focused on assessing how the landlord responded following the resident’s report of the issues on 17 March 2025, as this is the first record of her report of the issue.
35. On 21 May 2025 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to attend an investigate the sink. The landlord completed repairs to secure the sink on 23 May 2025.
36. In the landlord’s response to the complaint it did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint as it found it was still within the timeframe to complete the repair. The landlord’s response to the complaint is supported by the evidence as it shows the landlord completed the repair within 60 working days. This was within its repair timescales for a non-urgent repair.
37. We have found there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of this repair.

The repair to the unsecure toilets.

38. As above, this element of our investigation has focused on assessing how the landlord responded following the resident’s report of the issues on 17 March 2025, as this is the first record of her report of the issue.
39. On 26 March 2025 the resident informed the landlord her daughter had slipped off the toilet and injured herself. Given this report, it would be a reasonable expect the landlord to have raised an urgent repair to attend to the repair. The landlord’s contractor attended to the repair on 23 May 2025.
40. The landlord did not address the repair to the secure the toilet within the timeframe for urgent repairs in its policy, which is 21 working days.
41. In the landlord’s response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in it resolving the repair. The landlord also confirmed it recorded the incident the resident reported of her daughter slipping off the toilet to its health and safety team. It also asked if the resident could send supporting evidence of the incident to it.
42. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in addressing the toilet which was appropriate as the evidence shows it failed to address the issue at an earlier opportunity. The landlord attended the property on 18 March 2025 for another plumbing repair however, there is no indication its contractor investigated the reported toilet issue at that time. The toilet was not secured until 23 May 2025, when the contractor returned. Regarding the resident’s report of injury linked to the repair, the landlord appropriately requested supporting information to investigate the claim, but there is no evidence it subsequently received this information.

The repair to the radiator thermostat.

43. The evidence indicates the landlord first became aware of this repair when the resident contacted it on 17 March 2025. The resident said she reported this in January 2025 however, there is no record of this report.
44. We would expect the landlord to complete this repair within 60 working days as per its policy. It completed the repair on 11 June 2025 which was within this timeframe following receipt of the report on 17 March 2025.
45. There was no failure by the landlord in its response to this repair report.

Heating and hot water

46. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2025 to report a loss of heating and hot water. The contractor attended on 18 March 2025 and repaired the boiler.
47. The landlord’s repairs policy indicates it will attend to complete emergency repairs within 5 working days. Such repairs include a loss of heating and hot water during the winter months (1 October – 31 March).
48. The landlord confirmed in its response to the complaint, it did not find a service failure as it completed the repair within the timeframe in its policy. The evidence supports there was no service failure by the landlord as it attended to the repair within 2 working days of the report.

Conclusion

49. When we identify a failure, 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 doing so, we assess whether the landlord’s offer aligns with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes as well as our remedies guidance.
50. Having reviewed the landlord’s handling of the repairs, it is evident that it completed some repairs following its final response. However other repairs, specifically the windows and the water damage to the bathroom, remained outstanding for a significant period thereafter. This demonstrates a significant shortfall in service delivery
51. The landlord offered the resident £110 compensation in recognition of the delays and their impact. However, the resident experienced further delays after the landlord’s response. We find that the landlord’s offer did not adequately address the detriment caused by these delays and was therefore not proportionate to the failures.
52. We have therefore found maladministration by the landlord. This finding is due to significant delay in the landlord addressing the repairs overall, some of which the resident had reported since January 2025. Despite being aware of these delays when issuing its response, the landlord did not provide clear timeframes or take steps to ensure it completed all the repairs without further delay.
53. Our remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 for situations where failures adversely affected the resident without permanent impact. While the landlord’s award of £110 falls within this range, it does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional delay after its final response. The landlord missed the opportunity to put things right, resulting in this finding of maladministration.
54. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 in recognition of these failures. This amount reflects the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged attempts to have repairs completed. We have also ordered the landlord to address the outstanding repairs reported, specifically the water damage in the bathroom and the lack of hot water from the basin tap, as we have not seen evidence these have been resolved by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

55. The resident raised her complaint on 17 March 2025 and resubmitted it on 26 March 2025. The landlord failed to acknowledge the initial complaint within 5 working days, as required by its procedure. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 March 2025 and said it would respond within 21 working days. It issued its stage 1 response on 29 April 2025, 2 days after the deadline it provided. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframe and our Complaint Handling Code.
56. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 response, which amounts to a service failure in complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, in line with our remedies guidance, as the resident had to submit her complaint twice before it was acknowledged and addressed.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

57. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why landlords fail to provide an adequate repair service.
58. In this case the landlord had no record of the repair issues the resident reported in January 2025 until she provided the records with her stage 2 complaint. The absence of the landlords internal records indicates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping process. This failure led to an incorrect assessment of the timeliness of its response to the repairs and undermined the accuracy of its complaint findings.
59. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it confirmed it was reviewing the matter internally and would look into conducting refresher training with the repairs coordination and records filing to ensure this did not reoccur. This proposed action was appropriate as it demonstrates the landlord’s recognition of the need to improve its internal processes regarding its record keeping.

Communication

60. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
61. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.