Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202430416)

Decision
Case ID	202430416
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thirteen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 January 2026

Background

1. The resident appointed her daughter to be her representative for this case, and for the complaints made to the landlord.
2. The resident lives in a bungalow. The representative told the Ombudsman that in 2010 part of the front porch of the property collapsed. She said at the time the landlord attended to make the area safe. However, since then she said the property has been cold, showed signs of damp and both she, and the landlord, had concerns about the structural integrity of the roof.
3. The representative raised several complaints to the landlord over its handling of the roof repairs, its response to her concerns about damp and issues with not receiving compensation.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the roof.
   2. Reports of damp and excessive cold.
   3. Reports of heating issues.
   4. Queries about unpaid compensation.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the roof.
   2. Queries about unpaid compensation.
6. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and excessive cold.

b.    The resident’s complaint.

7. The landlord’s handling of reports of heating issues is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

8. The roof repairs were complex and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conduct multiple inspections to ensure the issue could be satisfactorily resolved. However, despite promises to improve its communication with the representative it failed to do so.

Damp and excessive cold

9. Despite the representative raising the issue of damp and excessively cold temperatures in the property between December 2023 and July 2025, the landlord failed to appropriately act on these concerns. Furthermore, it failed to do a damp inspection it promised in August 2025.

Heating issues

10. The representatives complaint about the heating issues failed to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. She had the opportunity to raise the issue again in subsequent complaints, but did not do so.

Compensation query

11. The landlord failed to show it had sent any of the compensation cheques. When the representative raised the issue in several of her complaints, the landlord failed to consider an alternative payment method to ensure the resident received the compensation.

Complaint handling

12. The landlord failed to escalate one of the complaints to stage 2 despite the representative meeting its escalation request deadline. It also failed to acknowledge a delay in responding to another 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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £200 for the landlord’s poor communication in its handling of the roof repairs. £100 for the repeated delays in paying the resident compensation for Complaints A, B and C. £350 for its failure to investigate the concerns about damp and excessively cold temperatures in the property. £150 for its poor complaint handling. The landlord must also pay the following compensation amounts it had previously offered if it has not already done so. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 02 February 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must complete a damp and mould inspection of the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by a qualified surveyor. Evidence of this inspection and the outcomes listed below must be provided to us and the resident (through her representative) by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property for damp and mould and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether  there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 16 February 2026.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2023	The representative made Complaint A to the landlord. She said the resident’s property was always cold and had concerns about the heating system. She also said the landlord had not updated her following a recent surveyors inspection of the property.   She wanted the landlord to investigate her heating concerns and provide a copy of the latest surveyors report.
28 December 2023	The landlord issues its stage 1 response to Complaint A. It said: It had received two previous reports of heating issues at the resident’s property. It said it attended both times and found no issues. It had not raised works recommended from a recent surveyors report, apologised and said this had now been raised. It said it did not provide these reports to third parties. The ongoing roof repair had been passed to its contractor for further investigation. It offered £75 compensation for the delay in raising works.
5 February 2024	The representative escalated Complaint A. She said: The landlord was incorrect in saying the heating issue had only been reported twice. A surveyor had recently told her the roof needed replacing but works still had not started. She felt it had not addressed her concerns about the roof, the heating and the damp issues sufficiently.
October 2024	The representative chased the landlord for its stage 2 response to Complaint A. She also contacted us, and we also chased it.   The landlord told us that it was not providing a stage 2 response to the complaint as it had not been escalated within 28 working days. We suggested to the representative she raise a new complaint to the landlord.
5 March 2025	The resident raised complaint B to the landlord. She said: The issue with the roof was still outstanding despite multiple inspections and regularly chasing it. She wanted an update on what it planned to do regarding the roof and a copy of the most recent surveyors report.
21 March 2025	The landlord issued its response to Complaint B. It: Said it had taken appropriate action regarding the roof and the works had been passed to its contractor. Reiterated the roof was watertight and only needed replacing for structural reasons. Acknowledged its communication had been poor and apologised. It also offered £250 compensation for the ongoing delays.
March to July 2025	The representative chased the landlord for updates about the roof works several times.   In June 2025, we chased the landlord for a stage 2 response to Complaint B.   The landlord responded saying it would raise a new complaint (Complaint C) and respond to the representative within 5 working days.
10 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint C. It: Said it was awaiting quotes from three different contractors for the roof works. Once received it would appoint a contractor and arrange for works to start. Reiterated it had no reports that the property was cold or there were damp issues. Said it had posted a cheque for £250 to the resident as offered in Complaint B but could see this had not been cashed. Offered £200 compensation for the additional delays to repairing the roof. It said it would send a new cheque for £450 to the resident to cover both compensation offers.
26 July 2025	The representative escalated Complaint C. She said: She had repeatedly reported the damp and cold issue to it. She felt both issues were linked to the ongoing roof works. The resident had still not received any compensation cheques. She wanted an update on when roof works were due to start, for it to pay the compensation it had offered and provided a copy of the most recent surveyor’s report.
13 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint C. It: Clarified when the roof works were likely to start but that it was still awaiting quotes from several contractors. Agreed to arrange a survey for the damp and cold concern. Confirmed it had sent a cheque for £450 to the resident that had yet to be cashed. Agreed to send a copy of a surveyor’s report from July 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaints to the Ombudsman she said: Despite the landlord’s responses its communication was still poor, the roof works were still outstanding and the landlord had not paid the compensation it previously offered. The landlord had not provided a copy of the July 2025 surveyor’s report as promised.

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	Roof repair
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

13. When the representative complained to the landlord, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said the roof issue had been ongoing since 2010.
14. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to assess the events that took place and how matters were handled. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the complaint issues from December 2023, when Complaint A was raised, until August 2025 with the landlord issued its final response to Complaint C.

What we investigated

15. The landlord’s repairs policy says it must protect the value and condition of its properties and prevent disrepair. It also states the landlord will keep in regular contact with residents about repair issues.
16. The representative complained about delays in repairing or replacing the roof. She said the landlord arranged multiple inspections, and despite surveyors recommending replacement, no works had started. She also said the landlord did not provide updates, so she had to constantly chase it. In Complaint C, she said the information about when works might start was unclear. She said the issue caused stress and concern about the property’s safety.
17. The landlord said the roof required replacement for structural reasons. For Complaints A and B, it said it had appointed a contractor to carry out further inspections. For Complaint C, it explained it was waiting for quotes from three contractors before appointing one to start the work. It acknowledged the issue had been ongoing and apologised. It admitted its communication had been poor and promised regular updates. Across all three complaints, it offered £525 compensation for delays.
18. Parts of the landlord’s response was reasonable. The issue had been ongoing for a considerable time, so it was appropriate to acknowledge this and offer compensation. The nature of the work was complex, involving significant works to the roof, so it was reasonable to carry out multiple inspections and surveys to ensure the repairs would resolve the issue. It also had a responsibility to manage budgets, so obtaining several quotes before proceeding was basic practice. In its stage 2 response to Complaint C, it clarified its earlier comments about when works would start, which was reasonable as it was a concern for the representative.
19. As promised in its stage 2 response to Complaint C, the landlord appointed a contractor and roof replacement works started in autumn 2025.
20. However, other parts of the landlord’s response were not reasonable. It acknowledged its communication about the roof works had been poor. In each response, it apologised and said it would keep the representative updated.
21. The landlord failed to do this. While progressing works with contractors, it did not maintain regular communication. For example, after Complaint B, the representative chased updates multiple times between April and June 2025, but the landlord did not respond. This was a failing as it was not in line with its repairs policy or its complaint response. It also showed a lack of learning from the complaint.
22. Overall, parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable and supported by evidence. It acknowledged delays and provided reasonable explanations. However, it failed to keep the representative updated, despite promising to do so. Its lack of improvement was a failing.

Complaint	Damp and excessive cold
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will triage reports by severity. It says it will book an inspection within 24 hours for severe cases and within 7 working days for minor cases, and complete any remedial works within 90 working days of inspection.
24. In each complaint, the representative reported there was evidence of damp in the property. She also said the home was very cold and the resident had to run the heating continuously. She repeatedly linked the issue to the roof and asked the landlord to investigate and treat the problem.
25. In its responses, the landlord said it had received a few reports about damp or cold. It said a September 2023 inspection found damp insulation in the roof but no other issues. It maintained the roof was watertight and not causing damp or low temperatures. In its stage 2 response to Complaint C, it agreed to arrange an inspection for the damp and cold but did not specify a timeframe.
26. This response was not reasonable. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it did not arrange a follow up on the reported damp and cold until its final response to Complaint C in August 2025. It focused on disputing the representative’s concerns that the issue was linked to the roof rather than assessing the damp concerns in line with its policy.
27. Given the repeated reports and two prior complaints, the landlord should have arranged a new damp and mould inspection sooner. The delay was not in line with its inspection timescales, and there is no evidence of it completing the inspection it promised in its response to Complaint C.
28. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and excessive cold was inadequate. It prioritised disproving a connection to the roof issue over following its damp and mould policy to inspect and, if needed, complete works within 90 working days. The promised inspection did not take place.

Complaint	Heating issues
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

29. In Complaint A, the representative said a newly installed boiler was not working. Despite running the heating continuously, the property did not exceed 14 degrees. She asked the landlord to investigate and repair. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it inspected the heating system in December 2023 and found it working.
30. The representative escalated the complaint in February 2024, but the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response. We address this failure in the complaint handling section. Complaint A did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process, but this was not the representative’s fault.
31. In later complaints, the representative said the home remained cold but did not report further faults with the heating system. We have not seen evidence of additional heating inspections or repairs.
32. The Ombudsman’s Scheme says we may not consider complaints that have not completed a landlord’s internal process. The landlord should have issued a stage 2 response on the heating issue in Complaint A. However, as the representative did not pursue that specific issue in later complaints, the heating issue has not completed the process and falls outside our jurisdiction.
33. If heating remains a concern, the representative should raise a new complaint with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after the process is complete, she can bring the matter to us and we may be able to investigate.

Complaint	Compensation query
Finding	Service failure

34. The landlord offered compensation on several occasions. It offered £75 for Complaint A, £250 for Complaint B, and £200 for Complaint C. It said all would be paid by cheque within 28 working days of each response.
35. In Complaints B and C, the representative said the resident had not received any cheques and asked the landlord to resolve this.
36. The landlord did not address the payment query in its response to Complaint B. In its response to Complaint C, it said it had sent a £250 cheque that had not been cashed and would issue a £450 cheque within 28 working days, combining awards for Complaints B and C. The representative later told us the resident received none of the cheques.
37. It was reasonable to reissue payment and combine the compensation for complaints B and C. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord sent the replacement cheque or any earlier cheques.
38. The landlord did not address the representative’s report that the £75 offered for Complaint A was not received. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which says all elements of a complaint should be responded to.
39. The landlord’s compensation policy does not require compensation to be paid by cheque. Given the representative had repeatedly reported the resident had not received these, it should have explored an alternative payment method to resolve the issue.
40. Overall, the landlord’s handling of compensation was poor. There is no evidence of it sending the cheques and it did not consider alternative payment methods to resolve the issue. This clearly caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

41. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaints process. It says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and stage 2 escalations within 10 working days. Both deadlines can be extended by a further 10 working days if required and agreed with the resident. The policy says a resident must escalate a complaint to stage 2 within 28 working days of receiving its stage 1 response. However it can use discretion if there are extenuating circumstances.
42. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022 and 2024). The code does not specify a deadline for escalating a complaint and therefore this is at the landlord’s discretion.
43. In Complaints B and C the representative said the landlord continually addressed all its responses to the resident instead of her. She said it was aware she had third party permission on the resident’s account and she had made it clear the resident was not in a position to deal with the complaint due to her mental health.
44. In response, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow the resident’s wishes by corresponding with the representative instead, apologised and said this would not happen again. However, it continued to send letters and emails to the resident. This was not appropriate given the circumstances and should have been rectified as soon as the representative reported the issue.

Complaint A

45. The representative raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in December 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 28 December 2023.
46. The representative escalated her complaint on 5 February 2024, which was 26 working days after the landlord issued its stage 1 response. Despite being within its 28 working day escalation deadline, it failed to acknowledge this or provide its stage 2 response. This was a failing as it was against its policy.

Complaint B

47. The representative raised a complaint on 7 March 2025 and the landlord responded 10 working days later on 21 March 2025. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
48. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response the representative contacted the landlord several times in the months following. However, each contact was a basic request for information and not a clear escalation request of the complaint.
49. The representative contacted the Ombudsman in June 2025 saying she was yet to receive a stage 2 response from the landlord. We chased it and in July 2025 it told us it would raise a new complaint and respond to the representative within 5 working days. When it did this, she queried this as she said she was expecting a stage 2 response instead.
50. The landlord failed to clearly explain why it had raised a new complaint to the representative. This was not appropriate as we had made it clear when chasing she was expecting a stage 2 response. However, she had failed to formally escalate her complaint, or suggest she wished to do so, within 28 working days of its stage 1 response. Therefore, it was understandable that it raised a new complaint instead.

Complaint C

51. Following the Ombudsman’s involvement the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the representative on 10 July 2025. She escalated it 12 working days later on 26 July 2025 and it issued its stage 2 response on 13 August 2025. This was 13 working days from her escalation, and 3 working days over its stage 2 response deadline. There was no evidence it had agreed an extension with her.
52. The landlord failed to acknowledge its stage 2 response was late. While the delay was small, given the previous complaint handling issues the representative had experienced this was not reasonable and should have been acknowledged.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. On the whole the landlord had robust records of its involvement in the issues raised in this determination. However, it failed to provide evidence of any cheques it sent via post, suggesting there is room for improvement in some of its record keeping processes.

Communication

54. The landlord’s communication around the roof repairs and how it was handling each of the representative’s complaints was poor. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents and their representatives regularly updated on the progress of any works and clearly explain any of its complaint handling decisions.