Yorkshire Housing Limited (202423130)

Decision
Case ID	202423130
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Yorkshire Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lived with her husband and 4 adult children in a ground floor flat. She had multiple sclerosis. Her husband who was not a joint tenant represented her in all dealings with the landlord due to her disability. We have referred to him as “the representative” throughout this report. He complained to the landlord in 2024 about its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by neighbours. He also complained that it had delayed in repairing a wet room and soil pipe. He later raised concerns about its approach to repairs, adaptation work, and damp and mould since the resident’s tenancy began in 2016.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. ASB reports.
   2. Repairs to a wet room and soil pipe.
   3. General repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.
4. The landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaints about its handling of:
   1. Repairs to a wet room and soil pipe.
   2. General repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould.
   3. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB reports

5. The landlord failed to provide the representative with regular updates about action it was taking in response to his reports. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a wet room and soil pipe

6. The landlord acknowledged it had not completed the repairs within its repairs policy timeframe. It apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for its delays.

The landlord’s handling of general repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould

7. The landlord identified numerous delays and other failings in its approach to repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould work between 2018 and 2024. It apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

8. The landlord failed to fully address all aspects of the complaint in its stage 1 response but it put this right by reviewing the issues in its stage 2 response.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the representative for the maladministration identified in this report. It must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident’s estate £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of ASB reports. This includes the £110 it offered in its complaint responses for its handling of ASB reports. If it has already paid this, it may deduct it from the £400 ordered. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident’s estate the compensation it offered in its complaint responses (£100 at stage 1 and £1,751 at stage 2). Our findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis this has been, or will be, paid.
2. We recommend the landlord contacts the representative to discuss our findings and to ensure he has no outstanding concerns about repairs, damp and mould, or ASB.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 January 2024	The representative told the landlord that their neighbours were engaging in drug and alcohol abuse, were verbally abusive to their family and were causing noise disturbances. The landlord opened an ASB case.
14 February 2024	The representative complained to the landlord that: It had not provided them with any updates about their ASB case. It was taking too long to complete repairs to a wet room in the property and it had not fully repaired a leaking soil pipe. They had incurred costs as they had been running a dehumidifier in the wet room for 3 weeks while the wet room work was ongoing. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint the same day.
22 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within this it: Acknowledged it had failed to provide the representative with updates about the ASB case and offered £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It said it would ensure this didn’t happen again. Offered £50 compensation for the dehumidifier electricity costs.
Between 28 February and 1 July 2024	The landlord met with the representative on 28 February 2024 to discuss how it intended to address the ASB reports. It said it would provide him with weekly updates on the case. Its records indicate that over the next 4 months it was in contact with him on 4 occasions. Also during this time period, it completed repairs in the wet room and to the soil pipe.
2 July 2024	The representative asked to escalate the complaint.
5 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request.
Between 11 July and 16 August 2024	The officer investigating the stage 2 complaint spoke to the representative 4 times during this period. During these conversations he referred to a number of issues not raised in their initial complaint. This included historic delays by the landlord in completing repairs and adaptation works and in treating damp and mould. The officer said she would address these issues in the stage 2 response. She told the representative that the response would be delayed as the complaint was complex and she needed more time to investigate.
22 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had: Not kept the representative updated about the ASB case. It offered £30 compensation for its lack of updates and a further £30 for not following through on its stage 1 commitment. Delayed in repairing the wet room and soil pipe. It offered £270 compensation for the delays and £210 for dehumidifier costs. Delayed since 2018 in completing numerous repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould works. It offered £1,211 compensation. The landlord said to put things right it: Would ensure it provided ASB updates every 10 working days. Would address recurring damp and mould in the property. Had approved a management move for the family due to the ongoing ASB and damp and mould issues in the property. It had also discussed other moving options with the representative. Agreed with the representative to refer him to a tenancy coach.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The representative asked us to investigate the complaint. He told us the ASB remained ongoing and that the landlord had not resolved recurring damp and mould. He wanted it to review its compensation offer. Shortly after he referred the complaint to us, the resident sadly passed away. The representative is the administrator of her estate and confirmed he still wished us to investigate the complaint. As her husband, he has succeeded the tenancy and remains living at the property.

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	Handling of ASB reports
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord took action in line with its ASB policy to address the issues first reported by the representative in January 2024. By the time of its stage 2 response in August 2024, it had issued formal warning letters to one of the neighbours who was its tenant. As the alleged behaviour included drug use, drug dealing and verbal abuse, it had liaised with the police. It had carried out numerous visits to the building and spoken with other residents to gather evidence. It was actively exploring installing CCTV in the street.
10. While it was positive that the landlord was taking action to address the ASB, its communications with the representative were poor. Its records suggest that in the 4-week period between his initial ASB report and the complaint, it provided him with no updates about the case. In the 4 months between its stage 1 response and his escalation request, it appears to have only engaged with him on 4 occasions about the ASB case. The representative initiated the contact on at least 2 of these occasions.
11. The landlord’s approach to communication was not in keeping with its ASB policy which required it to proactively keep residents informed about action it was taking. The landlord acknowledged in both complaint responses that it had failed to do this. It committed in its stage 2 response in August 2024 to provide the representative with updates on the ASB case every 10 working days. However, it failed to follow through on this commitment.
12. The representative contacted the landlord at least twice during September 2024 to advise that he had not heard from the staff managing his ASB case in over 2 weeks. It was early October 2024 before the landlord sent him an update email about the ASB case. Within this it apologised for its further delay in responding to him. The landlord’s continuing failure to provide him with regular updates suggested it had not learnt from the complaint.
13. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance, we may order a landlord to pay compensation to a resident’s estate. However, we will only order compensation for distress and inconvenience where this was directly experienced by the resident. While we recognise that representatives may experience distress and inconvenience in progressing a complaint, we do not order landlords to pay compensation for this.
14. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments up to £600 are appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident. In this case the detriment to the resident was that the representative was unable to provide her with regular updates or assurances due to the landlord’s poor communications. Although it recognised this in its complaint responses, it did not then put this right as its communications continued to be poor. Taking into account the duration of its failings, we have ordered it to pay £400 compensation to the resident’s estate for the likely distress this caused her. This is inclusive of the £110 the landlord offered in its complaint responses for its failure to provide regular ASB updates (£50 at stage 1 and £60 at stage 2).
15. Since issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord has taken legal action against the neighbour. We understand this remains an ongoing tenancy enforcement case. If the representative has any concerns about the landlord’s management of the case or experiences further ASB, he should raise this directly with the landlord. If he is unhappy with its response, he may raise a complaint on his own behalf given he is now a tenant.

Complaint	Handling of repairs to a wet room and soil pipe
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The representative complained about the amount of time the landlord had taken to complete repairs to a wet room and soil pipe. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have completed the repairs within 28 days. It exceeded this timeframe as follows:
    1. It raised a works order to repair walls and reseal flooring in the wet room in August 2023. It began the work in December 2023, only after the representative chased it the previous month. It then took 3 months to complete the work.
    2. The representative reported in February 2024 that a soil pipe the landlord had previously repaired was leaking again. It did not repair this until May 2024.
17. The landlord acknowledged all of the above delays in its stage 2 response. It also acknowledged the representative had spent time chasing it to complete the works. It apologised and offered £270 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused. This was broadly in keeping with its compensation policy which suggested it offer compensation of up to £250 where its failings caused moderate disruption.
18. Within the complaint the representative said he had been running a dehumidifier for 3 weeks. This was to assist with drying the walls out while the wet room work was ongoing. The landlord offered £50 compensation towards the electricity costs in its stage 1 response. This was not in line with its compensation policy which stated it would pay £10 a day towards electricity if dehumidifiers were being used to dry out a property. However, the landlord put this right in its stage 2 response and offered an additional £210 compensation (£10 a day for 21 days) towards electricity costs.

Complaint	Handling of general repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The stage 2 complaint handler spoke to the representative numerous times when investigating the complaint. During these conversations the representative expressed frustration that the landlord had regularly delayed in completing repairs and adaptations and in treating damp and mould. He explained this had been a recurring issue since 2016 and suggested that he always had to chase the landlord before it completed any work.
20. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would usually only investigate complaints about issues that occurred within the previous 12 months. It was therefore not obliged to investigate the representative’s concerns as far back as 2016. However, the stage 2 complaint handler discussed the matter with a complaints manager and they reasonably agreed that reviewing historic issues was “the right thing to do”. This was in keeping with its policy which suggested the landlord could exercise discretion and accept complaints about older issues, particularly where residents with vulnerabilities were involved.
21. The landlord therefore reviewed its records relating to repairs, adaptations, and damp and mould during its stage 2 investigation. It did not look as far back as 2016 and instead began its review from 2018 onwards. This was reasonable given, in line with data retention schedule, it was not meant to keep such records for more than 6 years.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord set out the findings of its review. It acknowledged and apologised that it had not complied with its repairs policy when completing the following:
    1. Repairs – it delayed in repairing a window in 2021 and a security light in 2022.
    2. Adaptations – it delayed in making some improvements to the garden in 2021 to make it more accessible to the resident. Some garden adaptation work remained outstanding, including work to widen the patio to create a safe turning circle for the resident’s wheelchair. It explained that part of the reason for this was that it had been awaiting information from the local authority’s occupational therapy team.  However, it acknowledged it had not kept the representative updated about its proposed timeline for completing the work.
    3. Damp and mould – it had delayed in 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023 in treating damp and mould in the property. It acknowledged that it had at times put the onus on the representative to contact its contractors and arrange appointments, when it should have made the arrangements. It also acknowledged it was wrong to previously suggest the mould may have been caused by lifestyle factors. It recognised that its repeated delays had led to the representative spending time chasing it for updates.
23. We have reviewed the landlord’s repair records, which also include details of the adaptations and damp and mould work. These align with the account it gave and delays it identified in its stage 2 response. We are therefore satisfied that it carried out a thorough review into its historic handling of works at the property.
24. Within its stage 2 response the landlord individually itemised and offered compensation for each failing, amounting to £1,211 in total. We are satisfied the amounts offered were in keeping with its compensation policy and that the overall amount was fair and proportionate.
25. During its stage 2 review of its damp and mould records, the landlord noted it was a recurring problem in the bathroom and bedroom. It said in its stage 2 response it would ask its damp and mould team to monitor the situation and identify the root cause of the problem. It followed through on this commitment and completed a damp and mould inspection 3 weeks later. It has since carried out various works to the bathroom and elsewhere in the property. The representative told us during a recent phone call that he in unhappy with the works. If he wishes he may raise a new complaint. However, in the interim we have recommended the landlord contacts him to discuss his concerns.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy also includes provision for extending these deadlines.
27. The landlord complied with these timeframes when issuing its stage 1 response. In line with its complaints policy, it extended the response deadline at stage 2 as it required more time to complete its investigation. It issued the response before the new deadline.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require it to address all aspects of a complaint. Part of the representative’s original complaint was about delays to wet room and soil pipe repairs. The landlord recognised this in its stage 1 acknowledgement letter but failed to address this aspect of the complaint in its stage 1 response. However, as we have outlined above, it acknowledged and offered reasonable compensation at stage 2 for its delays in completing the wet room and soil pipe repairs. We are therefore satisfied it put right this complaint handling failing by thoroughly addressing the repair issues at stage 2. We remind it, however, that it should ensure it addresses all aspects of a complaint at both stages.

Learning

Risk assessments in ASB cases

29. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment when it received the representative’s ASB reports. This was not a requirement of its policy at that time. It has since updated its policy to require its staff to complete risk assessments upon receiving ASB reports. It should ensure its staff adhere to this as risk assessments are an important tool that enable it to identify support needs and vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping was mostly good although we found some instances on its repair logs where the completion dates of works were not recorded. We explained the importance of maintaining accurate records in our Spotlight report ‘Repairing trust’ (May 2025). The landlord may wish to review this if it has not already done so.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication with the representative about repairs, damp and mould, adaptations and ASB was poor. It said in its stage 2 response it would learn from this and that it had highlighted the case with relevant teams. We encourage it to continue to share learning from complaints with its staff.