Southern Housing (202330674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330674

Southern Housing

28 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak from their bathroom.
2. Request for other repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The residents have a joint tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 22 December 1997. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
The landlord’s records note that the resident reported that members of their household have asthma and use insulin. One of the residents has had a stroke.
It is noted that both residents communicated with the landlord about their complaint. For the purposes of this report both residents will be referred to as “the resident”. The terms “they and their” also refers to both residents.
In December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about a leak in the bathroom. In early 2022 the landlord identified a leak from the bath. It attended the property between March and June 2023. On 28 June part of the living room ceiling collapsed. The resident moved out of the property because they were concerned it was not safe to return.
On 3 July 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, the main points being:
1. It had attended the property to take photographs but failed to resolve the leak which resulted in a ceiling collapse on 28 June. They called out of hours and an operative attended to board over the area.
2. A new crack had appeared in the ceiling. They were concerned about the ongoing leak and whether the ceiling was safe.
3. Their furniture was damaged by debris from the ceiling and the situation had impacted on their health.
4. They were staying with a friend and requested alternative accommodation.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. On 8 March 2023 the resident reported a repair to the ceiling. On 16 March it traced and repaired the leak in the bathroom.
2. It inspected the property and took photos of the damaged ceiling on 12 and 28 April 2023. When a third operative attended the property on 15 June 2023 they were refused access as the resident said another inspection was not necessary.
3. It acknowledged that the second and third appointments were a duplication and apologised that this caused a delay. It “fell short of the quality of service it expected to deliver” for which it apologised.
4. Following the ceiling collapse on 28 June 2023 it attended to board the affected area. It should have arranged for a plumber to investigate why it happened however, this did not happen until the resident’s email of 3 July 2023.
5. It set out the steps it took to inspect the ceiling and repair the leak prior to a further part of the ceiling collapsing on 10 July 2023. The ceiling was replastered the following day.
6. It apologised and offered the resident £180.05 compensation comprised of:
  1. £60 for its failure to complete the repair by the second appointment.
  2. £30.05 for the loss of the living room between 28 June and 1 July 2023 in line with its compensation policy.
  3. £40 for 2 appointments where it attended with no work taking place.
  4. £50 for inconvenience for the period 12 April to 11 July 2023.
On 25 July 2023 the local authority advised the landlord that the resident had moved into a hotel. On 30 August 2023 the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on their behalf to set out their ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and complaint handling.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord plastered and painted the ceiling. When it carried out a property survey on 3 April 2024 it identified additional repairs were required. During May 2024 the resident advised they were concerned about a new crack in the ceiling and that the leak had not been resolved. Works to resolve the leak took place on 29 May 2024.
On 31 July 2024 the landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns.
2. It had provided a stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. Emails sent by the resident prior to that date were not progressed as escalations because it had yet to issue its stage 1 response.
3. It set out the steps it took to address repairs between 28 April 2023 to 18 September 2024.
4. It apologised for “difficulties” the resident may have experienced due to the condition of the property. Where possible it had made attempts to raise jobs and remedy the issue “as soon as possible.” There had been instances where it had been unable to contact the resident and jobs had been closed. It asked the resident to provide their contact information so it could avoid any further delay with works.
5. During August/September 2023 the resident told the landlord they had moved out. It advised at the time that the property was habitable.
6. It set out its action plan as follows:
  1. Renew the ceiling and bath panel on 18 September 2023.
  2. Carry out redecoration by October at the earliest. It would try to bring this forward and would contact the resident by 14 August 2023 to provide an update.
  3. It asked the resident to confirm how they wanted its contractors to contact them and whether they wanted to proceed with the kitchen repairs.
  4. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in raising a complaint.
7. It offered £105 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for complaint handling failure.
  2. £25 for failing to respond within time.
  3. £15 for chasing.
  4. £15 for failure to follow policy.
On 11 October 2024 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on their behalf to make a further complaint. They requested that the landlord relocate the resident to “safe suitable accommodation” and pay for the costs they incurred for their hotel accommodation. They also requested compensation for “significant health decline” and “mental stress” caused by “unsafe conditions” in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2024, the main points being:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response, which was due to unexpected time away from the office which caused a backlog. It recognised this should not have impacted on the resident for which it apologised.
2. When it inspected the property on 18 October 2024 it did not consider that the resident should be decanted. It did not agree to pay compensation for the hotel stay because it had not approved a decant because the property was habitable.
3. In line with its Complaints Process it could not investigate concerns about medical or mental health issues. In its email to the resident of 18 October 2024 it advised them to make a claim on its insurance and provided a liability claim form.
4. It noted there had been delays in progressing repairs since 3 April 2024. These were partly due to difficulties experienced by contractors in arranging the repairs with the resident.
5. It upheld the complaint as there had been delays in progressing works since 3 April and its complaint response was delayed. It increased its “offer in the stage 1 response from £105 to £1,022.41.” “In addition to the £105 offered at stage 1” it offered:
  1. £50 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
  2. £450 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by time taken for repairs to be progress since April.
  3. £417.41 loss of living room 3 April to 18 September 2024. Calculated at 25% daily rent (£24.85) for 168 days.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 20 January 2025 the resident contacted us to request that we investigate their complaint. They said their health and that of their family had been affected.
On 25 April 2025 the landlord carried out a disrepair inspection report. It identified that works were required to the windows and cills. The water stained boxing behind the toilet should be removed to check for leaks before being renewed.
During a telephone call with the resident on 7 May 2025 they advised us that the family remained “traumatised” by events and had stopped using the living room.
On 12 May 2025 the resident emailed us to advise that the landlord raised the kitchen worktop on 7 February 2025 however, it was still accumulating water and smelt. The front door was replaced on 9 April 2025. Works to the windows remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In an email to us dated 12 May 2025 the resident reported that they were having issues with the boiler pressure. Associated works to the radiators were also outstanding.
In line with the approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we can only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. These issues were not raised as part of the complaint we have investigated therefore the landlord’s response has not been assessed as part of this complaint. The resident may wish to consider raising a fresh stage 1 complaint if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to issues which occurred within the last 12 months.
While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from their bathroom.

In December 2021 the resident reported a leak in the bathroom. On 17 January 2022 the landlord attended the property and located a wet patch underneath the lino beneath the bath. The notes say that the contractor believed water was coming over the top of the bath when in use. It sealed the lino and the bath panel. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy (repairs policy) says it aims to complete repairs in one visit, taking as little time as possible. The landlord’s response was in line with its policy.
The landlord’s records show it tried to gain access to the property on 23 February and 2 March 2023. It is unclear whether these were prearranged appointments or why access was not provided.
The landlord inspected the ceiling on 16 March 2023. It noted that paint was peeling from the living room ceiling due to a leak from the bath waste and overflow which were replaced at the time. A new bath panel was also fitted and sealed.
A works order was appropriately raised on 12 April 2023 to make good the ceiling. However, when the contractor attended the resident requested that the whole ceiling be decorated so the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend and assess on 28 April 2023. As appropriately set out in its stage 1 complaint response of 14 July 2023 the additional appointment caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident.
On 14 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase the repair and advised they were concerned that the ceiling may collapse “at any time.” They said the situation had caused distress, including suffering a stroke and being prescribed a stronger inhaler. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns which was inappropriate. This is because it demonstrated a lack of empathy and lack of regard for the resident’s welfare.
The landlord’s inspection on 28 April 2023 noted that the ceiling plaster was damaged. However, there is no evidence that it checked if the leak was fully resolved and/or whether the integrity of the ceiling had been compromised. Given the resident’s concerns about a ceiling collapse this would have been appropriate.
On 15 June 2023 the resident declined access for it to carry out a further inspection. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 31 July 2023 agreed that the resident’s actions were reasonable and apologised for the failure of service.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a works order on 21 June 2023 to make good the ceiling. However, before it could do so part of the ceiling collapsed on 28 June. Its repair logs described the resident as “very distraught” at the time she reported the incident. The repair log for 29 June noted its out of hours response to remove loose plaster and board over.
The landlord’s response was in line with its repairs policy to attend within 6 hours. It appropriately identified that follow on works were required to repair the ceiling. However, there is no evidence that it investigated the cause of the collapse including whether there was an ongoing leak.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2023 to say it was waiting to receive the out of hours report but wanted to assure the resident it would carry out follow on works to make good. This was positive however, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to check on their welfare and see if they needed any further assistance. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
On 30 June 2023 the resident’s social worker emailed the landlord. They advised the resident had been told by emergency services not to return to the property due to the risk of a further ceiling collapse. They asked it to make contact with the resident who was staying with family members. They advised that members of the family were vulnerable and they were concerned about their wellbeing.
There is no evidence that the landlord liaised with either the social worker or resident to discuss the situation which was inappropriate. It demonstrated an ongoing lack of regard for the resident’s welfare which undermined the landlord/resident relationship. Furthermore, the lack of communication compounded the resident’s distress and uncertainty.
The distress caused by the landlord’s inaction was evident in the resident’s email of 3 July 2023. They said the ceiling had almost hit their son who was moved out of the way when they heard cracking. It had left them feeling “shocked and scared.” When the operative attended they boarded the area but left a small gap which they covered with plastic because they were concerned about water dripping onto the electrics.
The resident said they were concerned the ceiling was still not safe and were still staying with a friend. They said the out of hours operative advised that someone would contact them the following day but no one had. The resident requested alternative accommodation.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord raised a works order for the out of hours team to cut down boxing in and fix the leak behind. While this was positive this was 6 days after the ceiling collapse and the delay was unreasonable. Its stage 1 complaint response of 31 July 2023 appropriately acknowledged that it should have arranged for a plumber to attend to investigate the leak sooner.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 5 July 2023 addressed issues with access for appointments. However it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the stability of the ceiling or the electrics. This compounded the distress caused by the incident itself.
The landlord’s assertion that the resident had not provided access the previous day was disputed in their reply of the same day. They said the only contact they had received was a text about a repair for the following day. They reiterated their concerns about the risks associated with the property and again asked for alternative accommodation. The landlord has not provided ‘live’ evidence that it had arranged the appointments in advance with the resident which is a record keeping failure.
In an internal email also dated 5 July 2023 the landlord considered whether the resident needed to be decanted. Its records show that the resident had approached the local authority to ask for housing assistance. It requested a call be made to the resident to discuss the situation. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate.
On 5 July 2023 an out of hours job was raised to check the electrics due to the resident’s concerns. While this was positive the resident first reported their concerns on 3 July. In line with its repairs policy the landlord should have attended this repair as an emergency and within 6 hours. The operative was unable to get a response at the property or on the resident’s numbers so a calling card was left. An email was sent to the resident asking them to call to make an appointment.
The repair records show that the landlord communicated with the local authority and resident on 5 July 2023 regarding alternative accommodation. It advised the resident that its out of hours operative had confirmed the property was safe and therefore they would not be decanted. It described them as “very upset” because no one had been to the property and they could not understand how it could be safe.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord attended the property to disconnect and make safe the lounge socket and light. It said there was no need to decant the resident as the leak was not affecting the electrics.
A file note dated 6 July 2023 refers to a phone call between the landlord, resident and the professionals supporting them at the time. Professionals were concerned that the property was “uninhabitable.” The landlord advised it could not see this was the case and said the out of hours service would have made the property safe and raised any follow on works. It also advised that it could not provide the resident with emergency accommodation.
The landlord’s responses of 5 and 6 July 2023 were inappropriately broad. It was unable to set out specific steps it had taken to satisfy itself that the property was habitable. It was therefore unable to provide reassurance to the resident. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered inspecting the property to formally risk assess the situation. That it did not do so was a failure which caused ongoing distress and uncertainty to the resident.
The resident’s frustration was evident in their email to the landlord also on 6 July 2023 when they said they had requested a report confirming that the property was safe but had not received a response. They said they were “homeless and suffering” and urgently needed somewhere to stay.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had made an appointment to visit that morning to trace and remedy the leak but had not been able to gain access. It confirmed it had booked an appointment for the evening of 6 July.
The repair logs show that it attended the property on 6 July 2023 to trace and fix the leak. It found water leaking from a “flush valve thread” which was repaired and concluded there were no further leaks.
On 7 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say someone called on 4 July to advise someone would be attending at 3.30pm that day. The operative checked the leak in the toilet and took photographs of the ceiling and living room wall. The resident said he showed him the electrical socket which was making a “whizzing sound.” They called the office who confirmed someone would attend that evening at 6.00pm. The resident confirmed their contact number over the phone and agreed that the operative would call when they were on their way.
The resident received 3 text messages saying someone would attend 6 July between 9.30 to 2.30pm “which caused confusion.” They waited until 6.45pm but no one attended. Their wife noted a missed call at 9.45pm but no one called the number that was given when the appointment was booked. They asked to rearrange the appointment and gave their availability.
Both parties gave different accounts of what occurred in relation to the appointments. It is evident that while they were frustrated by the process there was a common desire to complete works as soon as possible. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered assigning a specific point of contact. They could have coordinated works and liaised with the resident regarding their issues. This would have ensured the resident felt heard and ensured progress of the repairs. It is noted that the landlord set out contact details in its stage 1 response of 31 July 2024.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 July 2023 the resident reported that a further section of the ceiling had collapsed. Plastering works to the ceiling were carried out on 11 July with follow on works to stain block and paint booked in for 29 August 2023. While it was positive that the landlord responded promptly there is again no evidence that it investigated the cause of the collapse. This was inappropriate, particularly as this was a repeat failure as set out above.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 12 July 2023 they said their children were “traumatised and tormented” by events. They were still living in the hotel and asked again for the landlord to provide them with alternative accommodation. They were also concerned that works had been carried out to the ceiling before it had fully dried out.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 July 2023 failed to fully acknowledge the impact of the ongoing situation on the resident and their family. There was no reference to their health issues and no attempt to address the resident’s concerns about returning to the property. It missed an opportunity to formally set out the steps it had taken to satisfy itself that the property was safe for habitation and to start discussions about how it might support the resident to return.
On 19 July 2023 the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord to advise that the events had caused them “severe anxiety.” They did not feel that the resident could live there with young children and asked it to review the situation. During a phone call with the landlord on the same day the resident asked to meet their housing officer at the property to talk about the situation.
An internal email dated 25 July 2023 confirmed it had raised an order to trace and remedy the leak from the bathroom. While this was positive this was 15 days after the ceiling collapse. The delay was unreasonable and the lack of certainty compounded the resident’s concerns that the property was not habitable.
In the landlord’s reply to the support worker of 31 July 2023 it advised that the resident had been decanted and the repairs completed. It confirmed that the housing officer had been asked to attend the property with the resident to assist them to return. The reply was not an accurate reflection of the situation. This was because there was no evidence that the leak had been rectified and associated works resolved. Furthermore, it also gave the impression the landlord had decanted the resident which was not correct.
On 16 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say they had visited the property and found a calling card it had left. As they were not living at the property they asked the landlord to email them in advance so they could provide access. This was a reasonable request.
An internal email dated 30 August 2023 tried to clarify the situation relating to the resident’s return to the property. It considered that it might be appropriate to carry out a survey to address the resident’s concerns. This was a reasonable proposal however it came late in the process furthermore, there is no evidence it was progressed.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 31 August 2023 to discuss the situation. They responded asking for communication by email which was reasonable. On 4 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the property was habitable, the ceiling had been “fixed” and that they should return. It provided no details that might satisfy the resident that all appropriate works and checks had been carried out to ensure it was safe.
Furthermore, the landlord’s records show that on 20 September 2023 it plastered and painted the ceiling. Therefore, it is unclear in what way the ceiling had been fixed as stated above. There was also no evidence that the leak had been traced and resolved.
On 30 November 2023 the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord to say they were “shocked” by its condition. They said that during recent heavy rain a puddle had formed in the living room which showed the leak was ongoing. They asked the landlord to pay for the resident’s temporary stay at the hotel. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
On 4 February 2024 the local authority emailed the landlord to confirm that the resident was staying at a “commercial” hotel which meant the rent was not fully covered by housing benefit causing financial hardship. They asked for an update on when the family might return home.
On 15 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say that its electrician had attended on 13 May. While this was positive this was 11 months after it isolated the electrics following the first ceiling collapse and the delay was unreasonable.
Furthermore, the operative was unable to carry out any work because of the leak in the bathroom. This was consistent with the entry on the landlord’s repair logs. It caused inconvenience to the resident who set out their frustration that the substantive issue remained unresolved. They maintained that the property was unsafe and that the distress had an “extreme” effect on their health and wellbeing.
The second ceiling collapse occurred on 10 July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord attended to trace and resolve the leak prior to the electrician attending 10 months later on 13 May 2024. This was a failure of service which compounded the distress, uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
In the resident’s email to the landlord on 22 May 2024 they said it contacted them on 17 May 2024 to arrange an appointment to remedy the leak. However, an appointment had already been arranged for 21 May. When the operative attended on 21 May he did not have the correct tools and said 2 people were required. He said he would return on 23 May. This left the resident feeling “extremely frustrated and annoyed.”
On 28 May 2024 at 4.37pm the resident emailed the landlord regarding an appointment that day that no one had attended. The crack on the ceiling was worse and there was water on the floor so they were concerned the ceiling might collapse.
The landlord attended the property on 29 May 2024 to carry out works to the flooring. It is unclear why flooring works were arranged when the electrician identified the leak was ongoing on 13 May. The notes said that the living room ceiling was “collapsing” and the bottom stairwell wall was wet.
The operative accessed the bathroom and removed some ducting. The pipework was “wet and rotten” so all boxing/duct work was disposed of. They also removed the bath panel which was rotten. They found 3 hidden leaks and carried out necessary repairs. Follow on works to the boxing around the pipework, bath panel and wall were identified.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the leak was rectified with follow on works booked for 8 July 2024. It took 324 days to resolve the leak following the second ceiling collapse which was unreasonable. Furthermore, it is unclear why follow on works were not booked in for a further 38 days. Its response was not in line with its repair policy to resolve repairs in as little time as possible.
The resident replied on 3 June 2024 to say there was water under the basin and they had found cockroaches. They asked for the works to be brought forward. They also referred to their email of 28 May and said no action had been taken regarding the new crack which was getting worse. They were worried about further ceiling collapse and said the matter was “very urgent.”
On 13 June 2024, 10 days later, the landlord emailed the resident to say it could “not apologise enough for the experience you are going through from looking at the photos and videos you’ve attached showcasing the damages caused from the leak.” While this was appropriate, it failed to expedite resolution of the resident’s issues which diminished the value of the apology.
This was echoed in the resident’s email to the landlord of 18 June 2024 when they said it had apologised before but had not acted. They said that when the contractor attended on 29 May 2024 to remove the boxing and ducting the pipes were left exposed. Consequently cockroaches were now entering the property.
The landlord carried out follow on works on 8 July 2024. However, it was unable to fit the new bath panel due to a supply issue. It sealed up all the holes, temporarily refitted the bath panel and sealed all boxing edges and the bath panel. It also noted that that it filled holes around the pipework from the new boxing as the resident had mice issues.
It also raised “urgent” follow on works to attend to reboard the ceiling and skim. It said 2 operatives were required so the ceiling could be removed and reboarded the same day. It would also need to finish works to the bath panel, skirting and stairwell wall to cover “very bad” water stains.
In the resident’s email to the landlord dated 9 July 2024 they said that members of the family continued to be affected by conditions in the property, including asthma and psychologist intervention due to the trauma.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 31 July 2024 said that works to the ceiling and replacement of the bath panel were scheduled for 18 September 2024. It is unclear why the works marked as “urgent” were scheduled for a date 72 days from 8 July 202 when the order was raised. The delay was unreasonable and prolonged the distress to the resident. It said it would try to bring this forward and would contact the resident by 14 August 2024 to provide an update. It asked the resident their preferred method of communication to arrange repairs.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 11 August 2024 they asserted they had not been notified of all the appointments. They again advised that because they were not living at the property they would need advanced notice. This was a reasonable request.
On 23 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm they would prefer communication by email.
On 18 September 2024 the landlord attended the property to renew the ceiling and bath panel. Follow on decorative works were identified.
The landlord’s records dated 2 October 2024 noted that the resident had refused access to carry out works that day. However, when the resident emailed the landlord on 3 October they said they had not been informed of the appointment so could not provide access. The resident again asked the landlord to confirm appointments by email and to rebook the appointments. There is no evidence that the landlord provided notice by email of the appointment for 2 October in line with the resident’s reasonable request.
An internal email dated 11 December 2024 said the landlord’s contractor had tried to call the resident to arrange decoration works but could not get a response. The landlord said it would call the resident to ask them to make an appointment. Both the contractor and the landlord failed to use the resident’s preferred method of communication. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it will use the resident’s preferred communication style.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 December 2024 confirmed that its inspection of 18 October 2024 did not identify a need for the resident to be decanted. It referred to events on 2 October when it said the resident had refused works. It asked the resident to make contact to rebook. It failed to consider the resident’s email of 3 October and failed to acknowledge that its attempts to call the resident were not in line with their communication preferences.
It said the leak was resolved on 8 July 2024 therefore it could carry out the electrical reassurance test which it asked the resident to arrange. While this was positive it is unclear why it waited 6 months to offer the appointment. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for it to email the resident with an appointment rather than putting the onus on them to rebook.

Summary and conclusions.

In summary:
1. The resident first reported a leak in December 2021 which was not resolved until 8 July 2024.
2. The landlord failed to adequately risk assess the structural integrity of the ceiling.
3. Following the ceiling collapse on 28 June and 11 July 2023 the landlord failed to carry out a timely investigation of the cause.
4. The landlord failed to proactively engage in discussions with the resident to support them to return to the property.
5. Its response failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the situation had on them over a lengthy period.
6. It is acknowledged that the parties disputed facts relating to appointments. However the evidence shows that the landlord did not always contact the resident using their preferred method of contact and that they had actively pursued the repairs.
7. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy to carry out repairs in as little time as possible.
The landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration because there were a series of significant failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. It demonstrated a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Compensation.

The landlord’s compensation framework says it will make a payment of 10% of daily net rent for loss of a room and will pay £20 for missed appointments. It will assess compensation for inconvenience and distress against its compensation matrix (a copy of which has not been provided to us).
The landlord offered a total of £1,207.46 compensation comprised of:
1. £180.05 at stage 1 dated 14 July 2023.
2. £55 at stage 1 dated 31 July 2024.
3. £972.41 (including £417.41 room loss calculation) at stage 2 dated 11 December 2024.
During 2023 to 2024 the rent was £174.74 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident’s loss of the full use of the living room. The dates used by the landlord in its calculation are not considered reasonable. The period considered for our calculation is 28 June 2023, the date of the first ceiling collapse, to 18 September 2024 which is 448 days.
Considering the landlord’s compensation framework we consider it reasonable to pay the resident £1,113.28 compensation. This has been calculated as a 10% amenity loss calculation of the daily rate (£24.85) for 448 days £2.40 x 448 = £1,113.28. It may deduct the £417.41 it offered if this has already been paid.
While we acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £1000 and over should be awarded where there was a failure which had a severe long term impact on the resident. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £2,200 for distress and inconvenience calculated at £100 per month for the period February 2023 to December 2024. It may deduct the £790.05 it offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for other repairs.

Following the landlord’s inspection of the property on 28 April 2023 a number of works orders were raised to resolve issues including lack of fall on the kitchen worktop. One of the orders related to mould in the property. The repair log noted that a survey was due to take place on 18 May 20232. There is no evidence that the resident was notified of the appointment. On 30 June 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase. When it followed up with its contractor they said the planning team would contact the resident to book in works.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Operating Procedure states that it aims to carry out necessary works within 6 weeks of the initial report. By 30 June 2023 9 weeks had passed since the order was raised on 28 April. The reason for the delay is unclear therefore it was unreasonable because the landlord failed comply with its procedure. Considering the resident’s concerns about the impact on their health, this was particularly inappropriate.
On 26 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say they had been at the property and saw a calling card to carry out a mould treatment drop through the letterbox. When they opened the door there was no one there and the caller had not knocked on the door or rung the bell. They said they were not aware of any appointments for that day but did have one for a mould treatment to be carried out on 29 September 2023. They commented “this is confusing.”
As set out above it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have appointed a specific contact to coordinate the repairs and support the resident to manage their appointments. It is noted that it provided details of a contact in its second stage 1 response of 31 July 2024.
On 6 November 2023 the contractor carrying out the mould treatment spoke to the resident who asked them to confirm the details by email. It is concerning that the order raised on 28 April 2024 to carry out a mould treatment was outstanding 200 days later. It is acknowledged that the landlord did attempt to carry out the works. However, it did not go far enough to engage with the resident to ensure works were carried out in a timely manner.
On 12 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report rodents in the bathroom coming through a hole in the wall. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident’s support worker called on 25 March 2024 to request a joint visit regarding the condition of the property.
On 3 April 2024 the landlord inspected the property with the resident and subsequently raised works orders. They included repairs to the plasterboard on the living room ceiling, “slight” mould on the ceilings in the bathroom and children’s bedroom and kitchen worktop. Orders were also raised to address issues including the kitchen window and front door.
An order to raise the kitchen worktop was raised in April 2023, a year prior. It is unclear why the repair was not carried out and the delay was therefore unreasonable. The landlord did not comply with its repairs policy to carry out works in as little time as possible.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 May 2024 with an appointment for 9 May to carry out a mould treatment. Its records show it did not gain access and left a calling card. Confusingly the repair log also states that it spoke with the resident and her support worker who said no work had been carried out therefore it would not pay the invoice. The circumstances around the appointment are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 18 June 2024 they chased outstanding repairs including the front door, kitchen worktop, pest infestation, windows and mould.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 31 July 2024 apologised for “difficulties” the resident may have experienced due to the condition of the property. It said that where possible it had attempted to raise jobs and remedy issues “as soon as possible.” Its response was not consistent with the evidence set out above and was therefore inappropriate.
On 17 October 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a surveyor had been booked for 18 October. The survey identified that issues with the kitchen work top and mould in the bedrooms were ongoing. There was water damage around the sink base unit and the resident requested the rear of the pedestal be infilled as they believed mice were entering from there.
On 16 December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say they received a call on 13 December regarding a mould wash. They again asked for communication to be via email. This is further evidence that the landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy to use the resident’s preferred method of communication. The repair logs show the works remained outstanding as of 24 February 2025 when a further order was raised to carry out a mould wash and stain block the bedroom and bathroom ceilings.
It set out the attempts made by its pest control company to inspect and treat mice and cockroaches. We have not seen ‘live’ evidence that it notified the resident of these appointments in line with their communication preferences which is a record keeping failure. It is noted that it offered a further appointment for 20 December 2024 however the outcome is unclear.
It noted there had been delays in progressing repairs since it carried out its survey on 3 April 2024. It said this was partly due to the difficulty in contractors being able to arrange repairs with the resident. However, it failed to recognise that it had not always used their preferred method of communication. Furthermore, it is unclear why it limited its review of its response to 3 April 2024 given that some repairs were first identified on 28 April 2023.
There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of all their appointments using their preferred method of communication. It failed to progress various repairs in a timely manner including raising the kitchen worktop, carrying out mould washes, works to the kitchen window and front door. Works to the window and treatment of the mould remained outstanding as of 25 April 2025.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 December 2024 failed to set out how much compensation was associated with which repairs. For practical reasons we have considered the amount of compensation offered as total compensation for repairs associated with the leak. However, we note that the landlord did consider compensation in respect of the additional repairs.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to all points in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 July 2023 failed to provide a response to the resident’s request to move which was inappropriate.
The Code also states that a complaint submitted via a third party or representative must still be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2.
The resident made a further complaint via their support worker on 30 August 2023. This was a clear expression of ongoing dissatisfaction therefore the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the process. That it did not do so caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord continued to fail to provide a further complaint response despite emails from the resident’s support worker on 30 November 2023 and their solicitor on 7 May 2024 setting out their dissatisfaction.
On 18 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to set out his concerns relating to the additional repairs. On 2 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had raised a further stage 1 complaint and set out the complaint definition. While this was positive it came late in the process and only after repeated efforts made by the resident and their representatives.
On 9 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to raise his ongoing concerns regarding its complaint handling. This was because it intended to provide a further stage 1 response instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 July 2024 to advise that it had already investigated the points raised by the resident in relation to April to June 2023. It advised that “due to the length of time that has passed the concerns you have raised relating to April 2024 to present have been raised as a new complaint.” It acknowledged the frustration this might cause the resident given the points he had raised.
While the passing of time meant this was reasonable it failed to acknowledge that its own failures had caused the delay. Furthermore, it failed to recognise that this delay protracted the complaints process which also delayed the resident being able to contact us to investigate the complaint.
On 31 July 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This was 31 working days after the 18 June and 21 working days outside of its response time of 10 working days as set out in its Complaints Policy. It appropriately apologised for its failure and offered £50 compensation.
The information provided in the landlord’s stage 1 response was not always accurate. It referred to no access being provided on 11 August 2024. Given this was after the date of its response this could not be correct. It confirmed that around August 2023 the resident told it they had moved out of the property due to ceiling repairs. This was incorrect because the landlord was put on notice on 30 June 2023 by the email from the resident’s social worker. It confirmed it had advised the resident at the time that the property was habitable. This is also incorrect because the evidence shows the first time it discussed this with the resident was on 5 July 2023.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 23 August 2024 they advised that they had not been contacted by 14 August 2024 as set out in its stage 1 response. Landlords are expected to use the complaints process to improve the resident’s experience. It is therefore particularly important that they monitor any actions identified as part of the complaint process. That it did not do so was a failure which caused further distress to the resident.
On 11 October 2024 the resident’s solicitor raised a further complaint on their behalf. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 October 2024 to acknowledge the complaint and set out the complaint definition. It appropriately advised it would not be able to address the resident’s request for damages related to health issues under the complaints process. It appropriately signposted them to make a claim on its insurance.
It said it would respond by 16 November 2024 however it failed to do so. This was inappropriate causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who contacted us on 27 November to request assistance.
We wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2024 requesting that it provide its complaint response by 16 December. The landlord provided its response on 11 December 2024. This was in line with our timescale however it was 43 working days after the solicitor made the complaint. It was also 23 working days over the target of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s Complaints Policy. It is acknowledged that the stage 2 response appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
The Code says that landlords must communicate in clear, plain language the details of any remedy offered to put things right. The landlord’s offer of compensation failed to set out how much of the £450 was for the repairs related to the leak and how much was for the additional repairs. It was contradictory about whether the offer was in addition to or including the compensation offered at stage 1. Furthermore, its calculation for the loss of the living room was incorrect because based on its figures the amount should have been £1,043.70 not £417.41.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord appropriately offered £100 compensation for the delays in issuing its complaint responses to try to put things right. However, it failed to identify the additional failures set out in this report therefore its compensation is not considered proportionate. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from their bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for its Chief Executive to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,863.28 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,113.28 for the loss of amenity associated with the loss of use of the living room. It may deduct the £417.41 it offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £2,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak from the bathroom. It may deduct the £790.05 it offered if this has already been paid.
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its failures in its response to the resident’s request for other repairs.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. Write to the resident to set out the timescales in which it will complete the works identified in its disrepair survey of 25 April 2025.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the failures identified in this report. It should identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. This should include how it will ensure its staff and contractors use the resident’s preferred method of contact. A copy of the report should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should ensure that relevant staff complete the complaint handling learning module on the Ombudsman’s learning hub in its centre for learning. The date of the training and confirmation of attendees should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.