Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202514822)

Decision
Case ID	202514822
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured shorthold tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat. The resident is disabled. We do not have information regarding the nature of this disability. In July 2024, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the electrics and the condition of the plastering and decoration in his property, and leaks from the property above. In 2025, he reported further issues, including windows not being airtight, loose windowsills, leaks in the bathroom, a hole in a kitchen cupboard causing damp and mould, and problems with curtain rails and batons.
The landlord has replaced electric sockets, repaired the leaks from the property above, renewed the kitchen unit, repaired the windowsills, treated damp in the bathroom, and replaced the curtain batons. However, the plastering, decoration, and replacing the curtain rails remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about repairs to the resident’s property including the electrics, the windows, leaks, a kitchen unit, damp and mould, plastering and decoration, and the curtain rails and batons.

Our decision (determination)

We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord has accepted that there were works it should have carried out before the resident moved in including sealing the electric sockets, the plastering and decoration, and replacing curtain batons and rails. It has apologised to the resident for this and offered him appropriate compensation. The landlord has had issues in gaining access to the resident’s property and the delays in it repairing the kitchen unit, completing plastering and decoration and replacing the curtain rails, were therefore outside of its control. The landlord has also offered the resident appropriate compensation for its errors in its handling of his 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
We recommend that the landlord carries out the plastering and redecorating and replaces the curtain rails subject to the resident allowing it access to the property. We also recommend that it inspects the resident’s property and if necessary, repairs any leaks in the bathroom and to the windows. We recommend that the landlord addresses any damp and mould it identifies in the resident’s property. It should also set out its position to the resident in relation to the sanding of doors. If the resident does not allow access for the landlord to carry out inspections and repairs, the landlord should follow its access policy to gain access to complete essential repairs.
We recommend that the landlord inspect the front door entry system, to identify whether this is working as it should. We also recommend that the landlord contact the resident to see if there is anything else it can do to overcome barriers to the resident allowing it access to his property for it to complete repairs.

Our recommendations

We recommend that the landlord carries out the plastering and redecorating and replaces the curtain rails subject to the resident allowing it access to the property.

We also recommend that it inspects the resident’s property and if necessary, repairs any leaks in the bathroom and to the windows.

We recommend that the landlord addresses any damp and mould it identifies in the resident’s property. It should also set out its position to the resident in relation to the sanding of doors. If the resident does not allow access for the landlord to carry out inspections and repairs, the landlord should follow its access policy to gain access to complete essential repairs.

We recommend that the landlord inspect the front door entry system, to identify whether this is working as it should. We also recommend that the landlord contact the resident to see if there is anything else it can do to overcome barriers to the resident allowing it access to his property for it to complete repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: It had not responded to a complaint he made in July 2024 about repairs. It had told him it would rewire and decorate the property prior to him moving in but it had not done so. He had found several loose electrical sockets and had 2 electric shocks. There were cracks in the plastering. There were leaks in his bathroom, one from the flat above, one in his bathroom cabinet and one under his bath affecting the floor. He had had to replace his microwave after a previous leak from the flat above and asked the landlord to reimburse him. The windows were not airtight, windowsills were loose, and his property was cold. There was damp and mould which had damaged his bed, his divan and his bedding, and paintwork was bubbling in places. His curtain rails were not strong enough and doors needed sanding. He was disabled and the issues in his property were affecting his mental health. He asked the landlord to call him 12 hours in advance of any appointments and to use the buzzer as he did not hear operatives when they knocked on the door. He said operatives had left missed appointment cards even though he had been in.
18 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had closed his previous complaint in error and apologised for this. It would respond to the previous issues he had raised as part of his new complaint. The resident had reported a leak from the flat above. The landlord had attended the same day and repaired the leak. Therefore, it was not responsible for any damage to his belongings. The resident had not sought permission for installing the laminate flooring in the bathroom and his tenancy agreement stated the landlord would not be responsible for any damage to laminate flooring installed without permission. He should claim for any damage caused by the leak on his home contents insurance. Its electrical contractors had rewired the property and carried out safety checks prior to the resident moving into the property. The resident had raised concerns about the electrics in the kitchen in June 2024. The resident had missed appointments in June and July 2024. Its contractor had replaced loose sockets on 5 August 2024. Its contractor had fully decorated the property prior to him moving in. It awarded him £80 compensation broken down as follows: £50 for its failure to respond to his previous complaint and £30 for any inconvenience caused.
21 February 2025	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. He said: His bathroom floor was vinyl and not laminate and therefore the clause the landlord had referred to in his tenancy agreement did not apply. The electrician who had replaced the electrical sockets had told him that the electrics in his property had not been earthed properly and had had to remedy this. The landlord had not addressed his request for a decoration allowance. The landlord stated that it had decorated the property but had booked an appointment to carry out plastering. He preferred that the landlord call rather than email him, as written communication was more difficult for him.
13 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident. It said: It had attended the resident’s property various times to carry out repairs, but it had not been able to gain access. However, it had left calling cards and had rebooked appointments with the resident each time. The electrician who had attended his property had identified a loose earth cable, but this was coming from another property. It had repaired all the leaks the resident had reported within its timescales for doing so. It had completed work to treat damp in the bathroom on 20 February 2025. It acknowledged that there were small areas of plastering that needed remedying. It had booked an appointment to carry out this work on 24 March 2025. It had tried to arrange an appointment to inspect the hole in his kitchen cupboard several times, contacting the resident by phone and by letter. It had now inspected the cupboard and had logged a job to renew the kitchen base unit and back panel. Its contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment to carry out this work. The resident had enquired as to when his kitchen was due for renewal. The landlord confirmed this was scheduled for 2028. The resident could consider submitting a public liability claim to its insurance team if he believed his health had been affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his property. It acknowledged it had not responded to all the resident’s queries promptly. It was aware that the resident’s phone was not working properly but it had made several attempts to contact him and had messaged him. It awarded the resident an additional £155 compensation, broken down as follows: £60 for the work that it should have carried out during the void period, including sealing the electrical sockets, replacing curtain batons, fixing the window sills and the plastering; £40 for its delay in carrying out plastering; £10 in failing to respond to his query regarding the decoration; and £45 for distress and inconvenience. This brought the total compensation the landlord offered the resident to £235.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 10 September 2025. He said the landlord had repaired the faulty wiring, but it had not completed the plastering, there was still a hole in his kitchen cupboard, and the damp and mould had not been remedied. He had asked the landlord to telephone him in advance of appointments as there was a problem with his doorbell and entry system. This had meant he had missed appointments when he was at home.

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 to the resident’s property
Finding	Reasonable redress

It is clear from the evidence that the landlord has not been able to gain access to the resident’s property to complete all the repairs he reported to it. In his stage 1 complaint the resident asked the landlord’s operatives to call him 12 hours in advance or use the buzzer to his flat because he did not always hear them when they knocked. The landlord’s records show that it was not able toaccess the resident’s property to carry out repairs on multiple occasions. The resident told the landlord that his phone had not been working correctly and that the door entry buzzer was not working. However, we are satisfied that the landlord made reasonable attempts to call the resident in advance of repair appointments as he had requested and also left voicemails and used the buzzer as well as knocking. The landlord’s records show that it acted appropriately in leaving cards each time it had not been able to access the property and that it rebooked appointments each time. The landlord would not be responsible for any delays to repairs caused by a lack of access.

Leaks from the property above

The resident reported several leaks to the landlord coming from the property above his. On 2 occasions, the landlord attended the same, or the following day, to make the leaks safe. This was in line with its repairs policy which states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. In relation to 2 further leaks, it made either same day or urgent appointments but was unable to access the resident’s property. The landlord was right to advise the resident that it was not responsible for the damage caused to his microwave. This is because the leaks were unforeseen, were coming from different places, and there is no evidence that the leaks were caused by the landlord’s actions or inaction.

Electrical sockets

The resident reported loose electrical sockets to the landlord on 26 June 2024. The landlord scheduled an appointment for the same day in accordance with its policy that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, to make any issues safe. However, it was unable to access the resident’s property, therefore it was not responsible for any delays in it attending to inspect and repair the issue. It made a further appointment on 18 July 2024 but was also unable to access the property on that date. The landlord acted appropriately in replacing the loose sockets on 5 August 2025. It also carried out a full electrical test and certified that the electrics in the resident’s property were safe.
The resident told the landlord that he had 2 electric shocks due to issues with the wiring at his property. He also said that its handling of the repairs to his property had affected his mental health. The landlord advised the resident he could make a personal injury claim to its insurer if he felt that its handling of the repairs to his property had affected his health. We have not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it is fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts or liability insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of how to make a claim so he could progress this further if he wished. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. On this occasion we have not awarded additional compensation as the landlord’s earlier offer of compensation was sufficient, as explained in more detail below.

Bathroom

On 16 August 2024, the resident reported damp in his bathroom to the landlord. The landlord treated the damp it identified on 20 February 2025. The delay in it completing these works was outside of the landlord’s control as its records show it was not able to access the resident’s property on several occasions.
The landlord acted reasonably in not agreeing to replace the flooring in the bathroom as it said the resident had installed this himself. We accept the resident’s assertion that the bathroom flooring he installed was vinyl, not laminate. However, the landlord is not obliged to replace any flooring installed by the resident, whether it was vinyl or laminate as this is the resident’s responsibility to replace and there is no evidence that the landlord was at fault for any damage to the flooring.

Repairs to the kitchen unit, the plastering, the decoration, and replacing the curtain batons and curtain rails.

The landlord raised works to renew a kitchen unit and replace a back panel on 15 January 2025. It completed these works on 3 July 2025. The landlord was not responsible for the delay in it completing these works as it was not able to access the resident’s property on several occasions.
The landlord has confirmed it has replaced the curtain batons. It has provided evidence to show that it has not been able to complete the plastering and decorating, nor replace the curtain rails due to a lack of access. It said it has scheduled another appointment to complete the plastering on 14 January 2026. We do not know if this appointment went ahead. If the landlord cannot complete the plastering, decoration or replace the curtain rails due to lack of access, we recommend that it follows its no access policy, considering legal action, if necessary, to access the property.

Leaks into the bathroom, repairs to the windows, damp and mould, doors needing sanding and damage to belongings.

In his stage 1 complaint, the resident said there was a leak into his bathroom from the flat above and a possible leak from underneath the bath. He said there was damp and mould in his property. He also complained that his windows were draughty and not airtight. He said doors needed sanding. The resident did not escalate these issues to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, we have not investigated these issues.
The resident told the landlord his bed, a divan and bedding had been damaged by damp and mould in his property. However, he did not escalate this issue to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, therefore, we have not investigated this issue.
Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected by the landlord’s errors, and the landlord has not acted to fully put things right. The landlord offered the resident £155 compensation for its failure to carry out works whilst the property was empty and for delays in it responding to the resident’s queries. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must have a 2 stage complaints process. They should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
The landlord issued it stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to the complaint the resident made in 2025, within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.
The landlord apologised for its errors in its handling of the complaint the resident made in 2024. It offered him £80 compensation for this. Our remedies guidance states that compensation of £50-£100 may be appropriate where we identify service failure which may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were sufficient for us to be able to investigate this complaint.

Communication

The landlord has accepted that it did not respond promptly to the resident at times. It is positive that it has apologised and awarded compensation for this.