Great Places Housing Association (202341917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341917

Great Places Housing Association

7 July 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 the resident’s reports about:
1. repairs to the bathroom.
2. anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 13 September 2022. The landlord is a housing association. She lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is aware that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident notified the landlord of a leak in the bathroom on 14 October 2022. This had caused water damage to the wall. In addition, water had caused damage to the resident’s carpet. The developer conducted repairs to the property and the resident was temporarily rehoused. The resident made a complaint about this which was resolved at stage 1.
The resident contacted her MP in July 2023 and reported issues with her bathroom since the start of her tenancy. The MP said they passed these concerns to the landlord. In October 2023, the landlord inspected and recorded there was water tracking under the flooring in the bathroom. In November and December 2023, the developer’s contractor undertook repair works and the landlord visited the property.
On 10 December 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. she was distressed by the ongoing situation and lack of permanent solution.
2. the source of the leak had not been confirmed.
3. she wanted regular contact in the future as she was vulnerable.
The landlord responded on 26 January 2024. It stated:
1. it had agreed a scope of works, which had been shared with the resident.
2. it would arrange an independent camera survey before beginning remedial work on the bathroom.
3. it apologised and offered £500 compensation.
The resident made separate reports of ASB starting in January 2024, and the landlord undertook related actions throughout early 2024. She escalated her complaint on 9 February 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. It defined the complaint as being about issues with the bathroom, concerns regarding contact with the landlord and anti-social behaviour. It upheld her complaint about the bathroom and apologised for a delay in communication about the ASB. It offered £150 further compensation, totalling £650.
Works to the bathroom were completed on 29 April 2024. The resident continued to report ASB. In March 2025, the landlord confirmed that it was still working with all parties regarding ASB.
In June 2025, the resident told this Service that she was still unhappy because she felt the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the distress she had experienced during the bathroom issues. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ASB. She wanted the landlord to increase its compensation offer and to resolve the ASB issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s father acted as a representative for her during her complaint. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear that he has since passed away. Throughout the report, both the resident and her father (as her representative) are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident complained in 2022 about a leak in the bathroom, related damage and the temporary housing process. This was dealt with in a separate complaint and did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. This investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 10 December 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom

The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing and maintaining any equipment it has provided for sanitations including basins, sinks, baths, toilets and waste pipes. The landlord’s repairs policy states that minor plumbing repairs (e.g. leaks to baths or faulty pipework) and general joinery repairs will be attended to within 20 working days.
The landlord states it will confirm appointments for a convenient time that meets the resident’s individual needs. It will also let residents know once a repair has been completed and allow residents to confirm they have been completed to a good standard.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that new homes less than 12 months old may have different contracts affecting response times. The resident had been in her property since 13 September 2022, therefore, at the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s general repairs policy applied.
The resident has shared information that she contacted her MP in July 2023, and they said they had passed on concerns to the landlord. It is not possible from the documentary evidence available to assess if the landlord received these concerns.
The landlord recorded water tracking under the bathroom flooring on 10 October 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord updated the resident on 23 and 27 October 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its communication with her. In light of this, it would have been reasonable to provide an update before this.
The landlord contacted the developer who attended on 30 October 2023 and advised there was a slow leak, which they resolved on this date. The developer removed the flooring to dry the affected area. This was within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the bathroom works on 31 October 2023. The landlord attended on 2 November 2023 to inspect the works. It noted that humidity was high, and the floor was not drying. It requested the developer conduct additional investigative work and provide a humidifier. The developer provided a dehumidifier on 7 November 2023, which was within the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe.
The landlord told the resident that the developer would attend on 22 and 23 November 2023 to carry out flooring and wood repairs. The Ombudsman Spotlight on repairs, which is available on our website, outlines good practice. Landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing.
It is reasonable for landlords to inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary. However, there is no record of the developer attending on the 22 November 2023, nor of the landlord informing her of a cancelled appointment. This was unreasonable.
The resident asked for an update on 22 November 2023 and on 23 November 2023 told the landlord that the floor fitter had not arrived. She also reported a new leaking pipe in her bathroom. The landlord did not respond to these reports. This may have contributed to the resident’s distress and was unreasonable.
The landlord recorded that a contractor attended on 23 November 2023 and replaced the vinyl flooring in the bathroom. This was in line with its repairs policy, considering the landlord had identified the area needed to dry before the repair was completed. However, it did not respond to her reports of an additional leak. This was not in line with its policy.
The resident made a complaint on 10 December 2023 and reported the floor lifting and water sitting underneath the shower area. She said the floor fitter had said the issue was not with the flooring. The landlord and developer inspected the property on 19 December 2023. This was 18 days after the resident had reported the new leak and was in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord updated the resident on 21 December 2023. It said there were problems with the flooring repairs made on 23 November 2023 and these would be done again. The developer would also make additional repairs to the tiling. It stated the developer:
1. had not identified the root cause of the leak and the vinyl was replaced due to a reasonable assumption that the leak was at the shower/floor seal.
2. had checked the waste pipe and there did not appear to be blockages.
3. had checked the area behind the shower and did not believe there were leaks from the pipework to the shower.
4. would provide a full report of the issues identified and send this to the resident.
On 2 January 2024 the resident raised concerns regarding the tests carried out to identify the leak. Between 10 January 2024 and 4 March 2024, the landlord updated the resident 8 times on further drainage investigations needed, which would cause delays to work. It was positive that the landlord updated the resident regularly.
On 11 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that no one had attended that day as arranged and there was no communication of the cancellation. They said the bathroom was getting wetter each day and asked for an update. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 March 2024 and the landlord responded the next day. It stated that the issue lay with the developer, but it would arrange work if necessary. It did not acknowledge the 10-day delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. It had committed to updating the resident and this was a communication failure.
The developer completed the agreed bathroom works on 29 April 2024. These were inspected by the landlord on 1 May 2024. This was 5 months after the resident reported the issue. Snagging works were completed 7 months after on 25 June 2024. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord said that delays were due to disagreement between itself and the developer on who should pay for the repairs. As the property was over 12 months old, this was not in line with its repairs policy. The resident was not responsible for the repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered ordering investigative works and necessary repairs, while it negotiated with the developer.
The landlord did update the resident and gave reasons for the delay between 19 December 2023 and 4 March 2024. However, it was responsible for the repairs, which were unnecessarily delayed while negotiations with the developer took place.
These failures adversely affected the resident. While the landlord apologised and offered £650 compensation in April 2024, it did not acknowledge the communication failures or the additional delays in it completing the outstanding repairs. The resident has said that the situation caused her significant distress and exacerbated her mental health difficulties.
The Ombudsman considers this does amount to maladministration. The landlord offered £650 in its stage 2 response. Considering the landlord’s remedies policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failures identified.
Therefore, we order the landlord to pay compensation of £800 in replacement of its offer of £650. The compensation ordered reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs and its communication with her. The compensation already offered can be deducted from this amount if already paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

The resident said the incidents she reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as:
1. ‘conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.’
The landlord’s ASB policy (2023) sets out its approach to preventing and tackling ASB. It states it will:
1. record and respond to reports of ASB within 3 working days.
2. use a combination of professional judgement and its ASB risk assessment framework to assess ASB demands, adopting a harm-based approach.
3. encourage engagement and mediation.
4. where the perpetrator may be vulnerable, it may undertake an equality impact assessment to ensure adjustments are made to avoid disadvantage to those protected under the Equality Act (2010).
The resident reported noise complaints from her neighbour 4 times in January 2024. The landlord acknowledged these complaints within its policy timeframe and investigated with the neighbour appropriately. Although the landlord acknowledged the report, it did not contact the resident to update her for a month. It apologised for this in the stage 2 response, which was appropriate.
In March 2024 the resident reported noise complaints in person to the landlord during a visit. The landlord asked the resident to use a noise recording app and stated it would monitor this for the next 2 weeks. Between 9 March and 20 March 2024, the noise app recorded some noise in the background. The landlord contacted the resident, and she confirmed that the situation had improved. The landlord stated it would keep the case open for 2 weeks and then close if there were no more reports. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s inclusive services team attempted to contact the resident 3 times in April 2024, and the landlord provided the resident with information on how she could contact them in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate.
In May 2024, the resident reported ASB. The landlord gave tailored advice on how she could reduce the risks to herself. It provided some support for the resident to take actions and asked if she would like further support referrals. This was a person-centred approach. The landlord also took further actions regarding the report in line with its policy.
This Service recognises that multi-agency involvement placed restrictions on the landlord with regards to the action it could take and the information it could share with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord shared appropriate information with the resident and proactively contacted her at regular intervals.
On 5 June 2024 the resident asked for an update on the case. The landlord discussed the actions taken and gave advice on the resident’s use of CCTV. In July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident twice to ask if she had any ASB updates and to follow up a referral to additional it had made. The resident reported some confusion over if the noise app was still being monitored and said she had stopped using it. The landlord followed its ASB policy and:
1. asked the resident to complete an ASB diary.
2. encouraged her to continue to use the noise app.
3. confirmed if it had the right telephone number.
As of March 2025, the landlord confirmed that it was still monitoring the noise recording app and that it was continuing to work with all ASB parties to resolve the issue.
The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones. In completing risk assessments and focussing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact on the resident, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, as well as regular communication with the resident using their preferred method and at an agreed frequency.
The landlord has stated it now has put a new procedure in place and conducted a risk assessment. It is encouraging that the landlord revisited the case and changed procedures appropriately.
In summary, it was reasonable that the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy by investigating the resident’s complaint, signposting the resident to relevant support services and referring her to its internal support team.
However, we have found service failure because it did not complete risk assessments for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and significant milestones. We have made an order to share the current risk assessment with this Service and to share an action plan setting out the steps it will take to support the resident with her ongoing ASB complaints.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action…affecting a resident’.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would:
1. acknowledge all complaints, but no timeframe was given.
2. respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgment.
3. respond to all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
The lack of timeframe for the acknowledgement created an unnecessarily obstructive complaints process. The landlord’s current policy is now compliant with the Code and states complaints will be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days of it being received.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 10 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint 22 working days after on 15 January 2024. This was not in line with the Code and created an unnecessary delay for the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024. This was within its policy timeframe.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy at the time.
The landlord gave a stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. This was 52 working days later and was not in line with its complaints policy. However, it apologised for the delay in actioning her escalated complaint and offered £100 compensation for this.
The Ombudsman considers this to be a fair and reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances. This finding has been made on the understanding that the compensation payment has or will be made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £800 in replacement of the landlord’s compensation offer. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and communication failures. The landlord may deduct the £650 compensation already offered from this amount if already paid.
share the current ASB risk assessment for the resident with this Service.
share a written action plan with the resident and this Service setting out the steps it will take to support the resident with her ongoing ASB complaints.

Recommendations

If not already paid, the landlord should reoffer its complaint handling compensation and pay £100 to the resident.