Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202515615)

Decision
Case ID	202515615
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a purpose built flat. The flat was a new build when her tenancy began in July 2022. The landlord had an agreement with the developer that they retained responsibility for addressing repairs needed to the property during the 24-month defect period. The resident complained that it did not effectively communicate with the developer about multiple repair issues with the property. The resident was represented in bringing this case to us, for the purpose of the report we have referred to both parties as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Repair requests and its communication with the developer regarding these.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Repair requests and its communication with the developer regarding these.
2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that:

The landlord’s handling of repair requests and communication with the developer

The landlord promptly communicated with the developer about the repair issues raised by the resident. Though there were delays in these repairs being resolved its offer of £500 compensation was appropriate to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures. It apologised and offered proportionate redress.

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 the total of £1,000 for its handling of the repair requests and complaint handling as agreed in the final complaint response. Our findings of reasonable redress for the complaint are made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.
As the resident has said none of the issues are resolved, the landlord should contact her to discuss this. It should consider if there are further investigations it could complete, if it considers no repairs are necessary it should explain the reason for this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that: it had not repaired the Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit since she moved in. She said the MVHR produced too much noise which prevented her and her family from sleeping. She said a recent inspection found the vent pipes were “severely blocked” which she considered was a health hazard. she raised several other repair issues and its level of contact with the developer to resolve defects
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. it said the resident first reported the issue with the MVHR in December 2022. It said the developer had difficulty finding suitable contractors which had delayed works. It outlined recent repairs that had been completed and said as she was still reporting issues a further attendance had been scheduled for 22 May 2024. it outlined previous work the developer had completed for reported defects in her flat and repairs it completed to the communal area it noted her concerns about the defect reporting process and said it had taken action to improve response times it offered her £350 as compensation comprising £250 for issues with its communication with the developer and £100 for its complaint handling
31 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she said the compensation was not sufficient and she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.
24 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. it outlined the further action it had taken since its stage 1 response for the repairs it stated the MVHR had been inspected and was found to be working. It was not producing excessive noise. It acknowledged she disagreed and said it would provide noise monitoring equipment to investigate this. it acknowledged the resident had raised a number of further repair issues after her stage 2 escalation including a chip to the bathtub. It noted she was dissatisfied with the repair completed and it would ask the contractor to re-attend. it accepted and apologised for its complaint handling failures. It said there were several occasions before March 2024 where she had raised complaints about repairs and it had not logged or escalated these. it increased the compensation offered to £1,000. This consisted of £500 for its communication around the repairs and £500 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She wanted the landlord to provide additional compensation and complete the repairs.

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 the repair requests and communication with the developer
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs from the start of her tenancy in around July 2022. We may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord in a reasonable time period, which is ordinarily 12 months. As such this investigation has focussed on events after 21 March 2023. We have referred to events before this for contextual purposes only.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident did not ask us to investigate her complaint until 17 July 2025, nearly 12 months later. She provided information about recent issues with its handling of repairs. Though there are indications she made a later complaint in 2025 we have not seen evidence she completed its 2-stage complaints process. If she has exhausted its complaints process for the events from 2025, and remains unhappy with its response, she can provide evidence of this to us and we can open a separate case to investigate. We will not be commenting on events after its stage 2 response of 24 July 2024 in this investigation, except where these relate directly to something it agreed to do in that response.
A number of the repairs were the responsibility of original developer for the building or the resident’s energy supplier. Neither of these organisations are members of our Scheme so we cannot investigate their actions. As such, we have investigated the landlord’s involvement in raising the repairs with these organisations

What we have investigated – scope of repairs investigated

As part of the resident’s complaint, she set out multiple repairs she was unhappy with.. In her escalation to us she asked us to investigate 4 of these, namely:
1. The heating system within the flat.
2. The MVHR unit.
3. A pigeon infestation within the communal bike store for the building.
4. A repair to the bathtub.
We will address what we found for each of these repairs separately as part of this complaint.

Repairs for the heating system

From the resident’s complaints to the landlord, it consistently told her that the developer would be responsible for resolving most repairs for the heating. However, for repairs to the Heat Interface Unit (HIU) her energy provider was responsible for completing these. Its ‘Home User Guide’ provided to new residents also confirmed they should report repairs regarding the HIU to their energy provider directly.
On 4 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the heating problem she reported in December 2022. It responded to her on 6 April 2023 and told her the developer would be visiting the building on 11 April 2023. There is evidence it emailed them on the same day to request this. We have not seen evidence about whether this visit took place.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 complaining that 2 radiators in the property were not working properly. Though we do not have a record of it contacting the developer, their defect log recorded they raised the issue with her energy provider on the same day to attend and assess. We have not seen records of the outcome of this assessment.
The developer next attended in October 2023 to test the heating system. They recorded this passed inspection. They attended again in December 2023 and found some radiators were not working efficiently and required cleaning and retesting. We have not seen the resident told the landlord there were issues with the heating during this time.
The resident sent a repair request to the landlord on 3 January 2024 that there was no heating in the property. It arranged for the developer to attend on the same day. This was consistent with its repair policy and its defect agreement which said emergency repairs would be responded to in 4 hours. The developer recorded there was working heating at the property though 2 radiators were not working efficiently, as identified in December 2023. They told her this was not a priority repair and they would confirm a planned programme of work.
The resident made a further repair request on 1 February 2024. The landlord passed this repair to the developer who attended on 6 February 2024. This was consistent with its defect agreement which said it will attend to rectify normal defects within 7–calendar days. They recorded the HIU was leaking and requested the energy provider attend. The energy provider completed the repair on 20 February 2024 and left the heating system in full working condition.
On 1 March 2024 the resident told the landlord there was no heating in the property. It informed the developer who attended on the same day, which was in line with its policy and the defect agreement. They confirmed the heating in the property was working and reiterated the repairs to the 2 radiators were on their planned programme to resolve.
The resident’s complaint on 21 March 2024 about the heating system said she considered the 2 radiators needed replacement due not working efficiently. She did not specify any reason she remained unhappy in her escalation request and there is no evidence she raised any further repair requests prior to its stage 2 response. The landlord accepted there had been historical delays when she first raised this, but that following this it had raised her concerns with the developer and energy supplier promptly. It said in its stage 2 response the developer fitted new valves to the 2 radiators on 24 June 2024 and it understood this resolved the issue.

Repairs to the MVHR

The resident had been reporting that the MVHR produced excessive noise since December 2022. The developer recorded it had turned the motor down on 9 March 2023, and she was happy with the outcome, but further work may be necessary if the problem persisted.
We have not seen that the resident reported further issues with the MVHR until around October 2023. The developer attended on 6 October 2023 to complete sound tests and advised her to turn off the unit at night until it could investigate further. The landlord acknowledged in its responses the developer’s contractor closed the repair as complete in error. Whilst this delay was unfortunate, we cannot see this was due to a failing by the landlord. There is no evidence she contacted it about the MVHR during that time.
The landlord re-opened the repair on 3 January 2024 after the resident reported the noise was still an issue. There is no evidence the developer acted on this until 8 February 2024. This exceeded the 7-calendar day timescale from the defect agreement and there is no evidence it followed this up at the time.
On the developer’s attendance on 8 February 2024, it recorded there was a potential blockage in an external airbrick. They told the resident they required a cherry picker to investigate and one would not be available until late April 2024. She wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about this in March 2024. Though she said in her complaint there was a “severe blockage” in the MVHR there is no evidence of this other than the potential blockage in the airbrick the developer planned to investigate.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord agreed with her and the developer on 26 March 2024 to look at other ways to remedy the issue. Whilst the delay in investigating the potential blockage was unfortunate the reason for this was communicated to her and it looked at alternative solutions to mitigate the impact on her.
Around the end of March 2024, the developer recorded the noise from the MVHR may be a vibration in the duct. They also noted the airflow was low, which was likely due to them having previously turned down the motor to reduce noise, and the motor needed to be recommissioned. The developer confirmed a section of the duct was misaligned and arranged a further repair on 10 April 2024 to seal this and replace the motor. They recorded the MVHR was fully operational but that they should check the airbrick externally as previously planned. It took 15-calendar days to complete the repair which somewhat exceeded the timescale for normal defects in the defect agreement. We have not seen how the landlord followed this up with the developer at the time.
The developer inspected the airbricks externally on 17 April 2024 and found no evidence of a blockage. The landlord recorded the developer inspected the MVHR again on 22 May 2024 and found it was working properly with no unusual noise. However, it noted the resident did not agree with what they told her.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged she did not consider the repair resolved. It agreed to provide noise monitoring equipment to investigate further. This was a positive step to take and demonstrates its commitment to resolving the matter. It wrote to her on 27 August 2024 to provide a copy of the results. This confirmed the MVHR unit’s average noise level was lower than the designed sound level for the system. It said as a result it would not be taking further action. As such, it reasonably investigated in line with its final response.

Pigeon infestation in the communal bike store

Unlike the other repairs the landlord’s responses indicate the maintenance of the communal area was its direct responsibility, rather than a defect which the developer was required to resolve.
The resident said she first reported the infestation in September 2023. We have not seen evidence of this however the landlord’s account of events accepts this happened. There are no records that it responded to her concern at the time.
The resident said she raised the issue again on 5 February 2024, again there is no evidence of this but the landlord accepted it happened. It cleaned the bike store and completed repairs to the ventilation grilles on 25 March 2024 to prevent pigeons nesting. This was 35 working days after her repair request which exceeded the timescales of its policy to respond to all non-emergency repairs in 10 working days.
The resident did not specify any reason why she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s repairs to the communal bike store in her escalation request. There was also no evidence she reported another infestation prior to its stage 2 response. In its response, it repeated the action it took to remove the infestation. It noted she had informally reported a concern about pigeons perching on the entrance to the block and told her its estate cleaning team would regularly monitor and clean the area.

Repair to the bathtub

The resident did not report the damage to the bathtub, either as part of her original complaint or her escalation request. From the landlord’s account of events, she first reported this as a repair on 10 June 2024. We have included this as part of our investigation as the landlord responded within its complaint process.
The landlord told the developer on 10 June 2024 the bathtub was chipped and needed resurfacing. They recorded it as an ‘essential works’ priority which they should have completed within 24 hours under the defect agreement. However, they did not complete this until 24 June 2024, 14 calendar days later. We have not seen an explanation for this delay or that the landlord followed up this repair.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the repair and it would ask the contractor which carried out the work to revisit and advise on an alternative solution. It passed on the repair request to the developer on 12 August 2024 which it categorised as a normal defect to be resolved in 7 calendar days. The resident said this repair took place and did not resolve the issue but there is no evidence she has reported this to the landlord again.

Redress offered and conclusion

In summary, the landlord promptly raised the reported repairs with the developer as defects. However, there were a number of occasions where these were not resolved in line with the timescales of the defect agreement. It is also unclear how it followed this up with them.
While there was a delay in actioning the reports of a pigeon infestation, it took appropriate action.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted there were delays in the repairs being completed. It also acknowledged it did not communicate regularly with the resident about the action it was taking and offered £500 compensation. This was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance and proportionate to put right the failings we saw as part of our investigation.
The resident has told us that none of the repairs are complete and the pigeon infestation continues. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her to discuss whether there are any further investigations required and consider how it can prevent the pigeons from nesting.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained to the landlord on 21 March 2024. It acknowledged this the following day in line with its policy and the Code. However, we did not see that it contacted her to define the complaint as required in line with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 31 working days after its acknowledgement. This exceeded the timescales of its policy and the Code. It acknowledged this delay in its response, apologised and offered compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2024. Though she said she wanted the repairs to be completed she did not explain why she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. It acknowledged her escalation request on the same day in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement, it asked the resident if she would prefer a phone call or face-to-face meeting to discuss why she was dissatisfied with its response. This was consistent with its complaints policy. She did not respond to this until 28 June 2024, agreeing to a meeting on 15 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 July 2024, 38 working days after its acknowledgement. Though it told the resident it needed an extension it did not do so within 20 working days as it should have in line with the Code. However, it was appropriate for it to make efforts to understand why she remained unhappy with its response. This was a mitigating factor in the time it took to respond.
In both of its responses the landlord clearly explained how it and the developer handled the repairs, and how it had reached its decision that there were failings in the time it took to resolve these. With its complaint handling it acknowledged its failings, including accepting it did not follow its complaint procedure for the resident’s previous complaints, and offered her £500. This was in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to put right the failings we saw as part of our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were some aspects of the complaint where the landlord could not evidence what action it took, such as its initial response to the reported pigeon infestation. The landlord should ensure that it creates clear records to show what actions or repairs it completes as part of an attendance. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for its actions to put things right and any relevant decisions.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the developer about the requested repairs was generally timely. However, there is a lack of evidence it responded to the resident to confirm these had been passed on. It should ensure it keeps residents updated about any defect works and how it would respond if there were any delays by the developer in completing these.