Trident Housing Association Limited (202202385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202385

Trident Housing Association Limited

7 August 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 handling of;
1. Repairs following a flood in the property.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the flood.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. His tenancy started in April 2008 and ended on 20 December 2023. He lived in a first-floor studio flat. During the tenancy, he told the landlord that he was experiencing mental health difficulties.
The resident had problems with damp and mould in the flat. On 6 May 2022, he sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He said the landlord had delayed repairs and had not responded properly. On 21 November 2022, the landlord arranged for the resident to move out temporarily so it could begin work on the damp and mould.
On 19 November 2022, a flood occurred at the property. The cause of the flood was unclear. The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on the same day.
The landlord replied to the stage 1 complaint on 13 December 2022. Although the complaint was about damp and mould, the landlord also addressed the flood. In its response, it said:
1. Repairs had taken longer due to the flood and blocked guttering.
2. It would finish works the week starting 2 January 2023, and temporary accommodation would end on 6 January 2023.
3. It apologised for the delays and the impact on the resident.
4. It aimed to improve communication.
5. It offered £500 as a goodwill gesture for inconvenience, carpet damage, and electricity used by dehumidifiers.
6. The resident could appeal within 20 working days if unhappy with the response.
In January and February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord five more times. He raised concerns about the complaint response and the condition of the property. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 or log any new complaints.
On 26 May 2023, the resident sent another written complaint. The landlord accepted it as a new stage 1 complaint. In this complaint, the resident said:
1. He had tried to escalate his complaint months earlier but received no reply.
2. He told the landlord the flat was still wet but was made to return and live in it for six weeks.
3. The landlord left him in the flat even after the it knew it was still wet.
4. Some moves while in temporary accommodation happened with no notice.
5. He was under severe stress and anxiety.
6. He felt pressured to accept a new property.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 19 June 2023. In the response the landlord said;
1. It was sorry that the resident had experienced a level of service which was unsatisfactory.
2. It upheld the complaint.
3. Works were due to begin at the property on 26 June 2023, and an independent expert would monitor moisture levels at the property on a weekly basis.
4. It apologised for the lack of communication with the resident and said it would now give him weekly updates.
5. There had been some failings by the landlord but that it needed the resident’s co-operation to ensure it was able to carry out work in a timely manner.
The resident contacted this Service in November 2023. On 10 November 2023 we raised a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident. The complaint was about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs due to damp and mould.
2. Failure to respond to the resident.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 response on 8 December 2023. Although the complaint said it was about damp and mould, the landlord addressed the flood in its response. In the response the landlord said;
1. It was sorry for service failings that the resident had highlighted.
2. It must learn lessons from this case.
3. It had given the resident a £200 gift card for household items in September 2023.
4. It had replaced the resident’s king size bed and mattress.
5. It agreed to reimburse the resident £486.05 for food costs whilst the resident was accommodated in hotels.
6. It had referred other items the resident had claimed for to its loss adjusters.
7. Works were nearing completion at the property.
8. It was sorry for the resident’s experience.
The resident contacted this Service saying he was not happy with the stage 1 response. He did not feel the landlord had compensated him for all his items damaged by the flood. On 20 December 2023, this Service asked that the landlord escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The complaint was about the landlord’s:
1. Response to flood damage in the property.
2. Delays in providing compensation for loss of items.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 19 January 2024. In the response the landlord said;
1. It upheld the complaint.
2. That the claim for items damaged in the flood was with its insurance company. Someone from the insurance company would contact the resident in the next 10 days to provide an update on the claim.
3. It had mutually agreed with the resident a compensation payment of £1200 (the landlord recently confirmed this included the £486.05 from the stage 1 response). This payment was to address the time, stress, inconvenience, and associated expenses the resident experienced whilst he was unable to live in his own property.
4. It was sorry for the difficulties and frustrations the situation may have caused.
5. The initial handling of this matter fell short of the high service standards it aimed to uphold.
The resident escalated his response to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt it had not dealt with his insurance claim for items damaged by the flood. He wanted the landlord to be held accountable for how he had been treated. He felt that the landlord had not learnt anything from his experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident initially complained to the landlord about damp and mould. However, this issue was not escalated to and included in the stage 2 complaint response. According to Section 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot investigate a matter unless it has completed the landlord’s complaints process. While there may be reference to damp and mould in this report, it is for contextual purposes only and it will not be investigated as a separate matter.
The resident told the landlord that the problems have affected his mental health. We do not question this. However, this Service cannot decide what caused the impact or who is responsible. If the resident wants to pursue this, he would need to get his own independent advice and would need to take legal action through a personal injury claim. We will look at the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused.

The landlords handling of repairs following a flood

The landlord’s repairs policy says that a major flood or burst pipe is an emergency repair. The landlord must attend to those repairs within 24 hours. For other repairs, the landlord will arrange an appointment based on the situation.
The policy explains that if a fault cannot be easily fixed, a follow-up appointment will be made. This visit should either fix the problem or lead to a plan to resolve it. The agreed work will be confirmed in writing. This appointment should be offered and completed within 10 working days.
The policy also says the landlord aims to fix the cause of the original problem. It sets a target to finish all repairs within 30 days of the first diagnosis. It considers any repair that takes longer than 30 days to be unreasonable.
The policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for the building’s structure. This includes external windows, roofs, pipes, and guttering, as well as internal doors, joinery, and kitchen fittings.
The landlord does not dispute that it was responsible for repairs after the flood. The resident said the flood happened around 3pm. By 10pm, the landlord had placed him in emergency accommodation. This was an appropriate response from the landlord. However, there are no records showing what the landlord did to fix the cause of the flood. The lack of repair records for a major incident like this suggests poor record keeping.
In December 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response and said repairs took longer due to the flood. The contractor said work would be finished by 2 January 2023. The landlord admitted poor service, gave an apology and offered £500 compensation for inconvenience, carpet damage, and electricity used by dehumidifiers. This response was reasonable, but the landlord also included the schedule of works it was working to. This was based on a surveyor’s report from June 2022. This did not demonstrate that it had assessed the flood damage or updated its repair plan to include any repairs required following the flood. This was unreasonable.
In January 2023, the landlord said repairs were complete and told the resident to return to the property. Before and after moving back, the resident said the floors were still wet and the flat was unfit to live in. He said he felt ignored by the landlord and was told the floors were dry when they were not. The day after returning, he reported that the internal fire doors were also wet. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged a repair appointment for this issue. This means the landlord failed to follow its own repairs policy.
About ten days later, the resident reported water leaking onto an electrical part. The landlord’s contact centre flagged it as urgent, but four days later, the leak continued. This suggests there was a delay in responding which was not in line with the landlord’s repair’s policy. Water leaking onto live electrics is potentially a serious risk and should have been treated as an emergency. There are a lack of available records to show what the landlord did to repair this problem or confirm when the issue was resolved. This indicates record keeping issues.
In February 2023, the landlord agreed the floors were too wet and moved the resident back into temporary accommodation. An inspection confirmed the damp was caused by flooding and would take time to fix. The landlord confirmed the home was uninhabitable. It is reasonable to conclude the home was not fit to live in when the resident returned as the resident had raised this concern immediately and by the following month the landlord had confirmed he needed to be moved out. The indicates that the landlord failed to assess the property properly, to ensure it met the requirements under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
In December 2023, the landlord issued another stage 1 response, acknowledging it service failings and apologising for the resident’s experience. While it did not explain why repairs were delayed it did say that they were “nearing completion.” It responded to the resident’s concern about being out of pocket and agreed to reimburse £486.05 for food costs while the resident stayed in a hotel. It also said it had already provided the resident with £500 compensation in its previous stage 1 response, a £200 gift card for household items and clothes and replaced a king-size bed and mattress. The landlord recognised the need to learn from the resident’s experience and demonstrated it was trying to put things right. Overall, the response reflects a reasonable effort to address the situation.
The resident remained in temporary accommodation from February 2023 until 20 December 2023, when the landlord offered him a new permanent tenancy in a one-bedroom property. Being unable to return home for 13 months would have been stressful and inconvenient for the resident but it is positive that the landlord eventually made the decision to offer alternative accommodation on a permanent basis.
In its stage 2 response from January 2024, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the frustration caused. It offered £1,200 in compensation for time, stress, inconvenience, and costs linked to temporary accommodation (this includes the £486.05 for food agreed at stage 1).
Having reviewed the landlord’s evidence it indicates problems with record keeping. It is unclear from the available records what repairs were ordered, when they were done, or when each part of the work was completed. What is clear is that the property was still not ready when the resident was rehoused in December 2023, 13 months after the flood. This is an unreasonable length of time to wait for the repairs to be identified and completed. The landlord notes in its repairs policy that it is unreasonable for any repair to take longer than 30 days. We understand that complex repairs can take time when multiple contractors are needed. However, from the evidence we have received from the landlord it shows that the first assessment of the property in relation to flood damage took place on 30 May 2023, some six months after the flood. The landlord’s failure to reassess the property for the damage from the flood for six months caused unnecessary delays.
The landlord has paid the resident a total of £1900 through the complaints process. This includes compensation for time, stress and inconvenience and reimbursement for costs linked to temporary accommodation and carpet damage. This compensation exceeds our remedies guidance for cases involving maladministration. This shows the landlord acknowledged that there were failures and took appropriate steps to put things right.
In reviewing the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the flood we have identified numerous failings. These include;
1. A failure to make a new assessment of damage and work required immediately following the flood.
2. The resident spending 13 months in temporary accommodation.
3. Repairs took an unreasonable amount of time to complete.
4. The landlord instructing the resident to return to a property that was not ready.
5. The resident having to chase the landlord for updates and action.
6. Record keeping failures.
In conclusion, the landlord admitted failings in how it handled the repairs. If it had not already taken steps to put things right, we would have found maladministration. However, the landlord has apologised and offered over £1,000 in compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. For these reasons, we find that the landlord made reasonable redress in its handling of repairs after the flood.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the flood

The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage to personal belongings. It does not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we can check if the landlord followed the correct process, acted fairly, and used good practice. The Ombudsman may refer to laws and policies to form a view. But if there is a dispute, only a court or tribunal can make a final, binding decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not deal with claims for compensation that would normally be dealt with by its insurers or any claim that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy, this includes damage through flood or fire to residents’ belongings.
The resident had claimed that furniture items, white goods, gaming equipment, flooring, clothes, shoes, linens and other household items were damaged by the flood. It is unclear exactly when the landlord referred the damages claim to its insurance company but its response to the resident in December 2023 confirmed that it had been sent. This shows that the landlord acted in accordance with its compensation policy.
The resident has confirmed to this Service in July 2025 that he has received a settlement offer from the insurance company.
The landlord acted appropriately in this instance and followed its policy by referring the resident’s claim for compensation to its insurance company. For this reason, we find no maladministration on the part of the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlords handling of the complaint

The landlord did not send this Service a copy of its complaint procedure for the period covering May 2022 to August 2022. For this reason, when assessing if the landlord was reasonable in its actions during that period the expectations set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) will be used in place of the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s September 2022 complaints policy defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction and set clear expectations for timely responses through a two-stage process. It was required to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10, and for stage 2, acknowledge within 2 days and respond within 20, unless an extension was agreed. The policy also says if the landlord will explain to the resident if it does not accept a complaint or will not escalate to stage 2.
The landlord updated its complaints policy in May 2023, within this version of the policy the landlord extended acknowledgment of stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to 5 days from the previous 2 days. This brought it in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code.
The resident sent a stage one complaint to the landlord on 6 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 20 May 2022,10 working days after the complaint was sent. It should have responded within 5 working days according to the Code. The landlord did not provide any evidence to explain that this delay was outside its control.
On the same day it acknowledged the complaint the landlord requested an extension to respond to allow it time to receive a surveyor’s report. It was reasonable for the landlord to request an extension in this instance if it would allow the landlord to answer the complaint more comprehensively.
The landlord received the surveyor report on or around 14 June 2022 but did not respond to the stage 1 complaint until 13 December 2022. This was seven months after the resident sent the complaint and six months after the landlord received the report. The landlord did not apologise for or explain why there had been such a significant delay in it responding to the complaint. It is reasonable to presume that this delay would have caused the resident distress as he continued to live in the property that had damp and mould until 19 November 2022.
Between 6 January and 25 January 2023 (15 to 28 working days from the stage 1 response), the resident contacted the landlord five times expressing that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and raised concerns that the property was not fit to live in. The landlord’s policy said that a resident has 20 working days to escalate to stage 2. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as at least two of the resident’s contacts were within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy.
On 26 May 2023, the resident sent a written complaint to the landlord. The landlord accepted this as a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord had until 2 June 2023 to respond but did not do so until 19 June 2023. In the response the landlord failed to explain why it was late nor did it offer an apology or any redress for the delay. This is a failure on the landlord’s part to adhere to its complaints policy.
In its stage 1 response from June 2023, the landlord apologised for poor communication and that the resident felt he had no options other than to live in a damp property. This wording does not reflect that the landlord made the decision for the resident to return to the property. It also does not acknowledge the failings it made in making that decision. The wording of the apology may have caused further distress to the resident.
On 3 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with how it had handled repairs. He listed complaints in relation to communication from the landlord, his treatment from the landlord and failure to respond to his complaints. The landlord did not take this as a new stage 1 complaint, and there is no evidence to show it responded. The landlord has failed to follow its own policy by not responding to this complaint. Given that the resident is complaining that the landlord had failed to respond to his complaints, this lack of response from the landlord would understandably have added to the frustration of the resident.
In October 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the situation had impacted his mental health and had contacted his GP for support. This highlighted the distress the situation had had on the resident.
Following contact from the resident this Service raised another stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 10 November 2023. The landlord should have responded to the complaint by 24 November 2023 but did not respond until 8 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge that its response was late or give any reasons why it was not able to respond on time. Although it apologised for service failings highlighted by the resident, it did not specifically apologise for failing to meet the requirements of its complaints policy, nor did it offer any redress to these failings right.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 19 January 2024. This was in line with its policy response timeframes. In the response the landlord said that it upheld the complaint and offered an apology for the difficulties and frustrations the situation may have caused. However, the response does not answer the concern around the delays to respond to flood damage in the property. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to this point and this is likely to have caused additional frustration for the resident.
The landlord also said it had mutually agreed with the resident a compensation payment of £1200. This payment was to address the time, stress, inconvenience, and associated expenses the resident experienced whilst he was unable to live in his own property. Given that the landlord has not acknowledged any failings in relation to complaint handling it is reasonable to assume this payment was not meant to cover any time or inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
In reviewing the complaint’s handling in this case we have identified numerous failings on the landlord’s part. These include;
1. Three occasions where the landlord failed to respond to complaints on time. One as significantly as 7 months later.
2. Five occasions where the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
3. At least one occasion where the landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to a complaint.
4. Multiple occasions where the landlord either failed to acknowledge or explain why it was late in responding to the complaint, failed to apologise for the delays and failed to offer any redress to put it right.
In conclusion, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings in relation to its complaints handling and has made no attempt to put things right. Although these failings would have undoubtedly caused the resident frustration there is no evidence to suggest they had a permanent impact on him. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it would be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident specifically for its complaint handling failings and pay the resident £250.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of repairs following the flood.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the flood.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must;
1. Apologise in writing for the failings in relation to the complaint handling. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

In terms of record keeping, we recommended that the landlord consider updating its practices. In doing so it is advised that it have regard to the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
We recommend that the landlord ensures all staff involved in complaint handling have regular and comprehensive training. This should include awareness around the Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code to ensure all staff are aware of landlord obligations and the importance of learning from complaints to improve service delivery.