Thrive Homes Limited (202436232)

Background

1. The resident lives with her son, who has Tourette syndrome. She complained to the landlord about its handling of damp and mould, and noise reports. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of damp and mould.
   2. Handling of noise nuisance.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould

4. The landlord acknowledged communication and record keeping failings and repair delays. It apologised for the service failure and identified repairs. However, it did these repairs 2 months after when it said it would.

Landlord’s handling of noise nuisance

5. The landlord did not consistently follow its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord did not follow the timelines in its policy. It failed to investigate the resident’s complaint about its handling of noise nuisance at stage 1.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident said she wanted the landlord to move her to a different property. We explained to the resident this was not an outcome we can provide.

What we have considered

8. The resident said there were historical issues with damp and mould at the property. We encourage residents to complain to their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord can consider issues when they are ‘live’, and evidence is readily available. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses the resident reported damp in January 2023. We have therefore considered the period from January 2023 until January 2025, when the landlord complete repairs listed in its stage 2 response.
9. On 17 January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould. The landlord did not do an inspection.
10. The landlord did a mould wash on 2 February 2023 and ordered guttering repairs. It did the repairs on 14 March 2023. This was within its target completion time for routine repairs.
11. On 19 June 2023 the resident reported wet walls. The landlord said it would inspect on 29 June 2023 but failed to do so. Instead, it inspected on 5 July 2023. It then ordered a mould treatment and repairs to the bathroom fan. It did these on 4 August 2023.
12. On 8 April 2024 the resident told the landlord mould was damaging carpets, furniture and clothing. On 12 April 2024 the resident again reported mould and asked the landlord to inspect. The landlord did not respond to the resident.
13. After the resident complained, the landlord inspected on 5 September 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would replace the kitchen and bathroom fans on 23 September 2024 and replace the bath sealant and do a mould wash on 30 September 2024. The landlord apologised and awarded £270 compensation. It said if the resident made an insurance claim for damaged property it would cover any excess.
14. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had completed the repairs identified at stage 1. It said it inspected on 23 October 2024 and found repairs were needed after the fans were put in and a vent removed. The landlord said there was delay ordering these. It said they would be done on 26 November 2024, and it would inspect 3 months after. The landlord apologised and increased its compensation offer to £400.
15. The landlord’s repair records say it did the repairs identified at stage 2 on 22 January 2025.
16. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
17. The landlord acknowledged it failed to arrange inspections and did not follow its damp and mould process. It said communication and record keeping failures and repair delays meant it took too long to fix the damp and mould. It offered £400 compensation. This falls within the range in our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident.
18. The landlord identified outstanding decorative repairs. However, it did not complete these when it said it would. As there was a 2-month delay in doing the repairs, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and to pay £50 additional compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failing in the service a landlord provided.

19. In November 2023 the resident reported noise from multiple properties. She said neighbours were having late night parties and this was affecting her son’s sleep. The resident said her son had Tourette syndrome and lack of sleep worsened his symptoms.
20. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says it will respond to noise nuisance reports within 3 working days, agree an action plan and do any agreed actions within 5 working days. The landlord said it left a voicemail for the resident. However, it attempt to contact her again.
21. In December 2024 the resident reported loud music being played, late at night. The landlord said it sent diary sheets and told the resident it would contact the neighbour. The landlord has not sent us records of that contact.
22. In February 2024 the resident reported noise from workmen and from neighbours.
23. Between June 2024 and August 2024, the resident reported noise from 2 properties. The landlord responded to these reports and contacted both neighbours.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it contacted the resident after she complained. The landlord said the resident did not want to open an ASB case and asked it to speak with the neighbour. It said it spoke with the neighbour, and she apologised and said she would reduce the noise. The landlord said it acted correctly as the resident wanted the issues handled informally. The landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss the noise issues. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 November 2024. It concluded the noise was not ASB and that acoustic testing was needed.
25. In dealing with the resident’s reports the landlord did not consistently follow its policy and its records were incomplete. For these reasons we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £50 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says if additional time is needed to provide a response the landlord will agree this with the resident. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
27. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 September 2024. This was 8 working days after the timeframe required by its policy.
28. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 September 2024. This was 3 working days after the required timeframe.
29. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of noise nuisance. The Code requires landlords to investigate all complaint issues.
30. On 21 September 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She queried why the landlord had not investigated all the issues. The resident also said it was too late for her to claim on her insurance for the damage caused by the damp and mould.
31. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. It sent its stage 2 response on 22 November 2024. This was 20 working days after the required timeframe.
32. The landlord acknowledged it should have investigated the resident’s complaint about its handling of noise nuisance at stage 1. The landlord apologised and said it had investigated at stage 2. The landlord failed to acknowledge its actions had prevented the resident accessing the full complaint resolution process.
33. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern that it was too late for her to make a claim on her own insurance. This was contrary to the Code, which requires landlord’s address all issues raised in the complaint.
34. As a result of these failings, we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £125 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there have been failings that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s records of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance were incomplete.

Communication

36. The landlord acknowledged its communication about repairs was inadequate.