Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202433911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433911

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

11 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:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the subsequent repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a ground floor flat, and the resident’s tenancy started on 11 March 2024. The landlord has told us it has no recorded vulnerabilities for her. However, the evidence provided shows she made it aware soon after moving in that she has respiratory issues.
On 14 March 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property. On 20 March 2024 she raised a formal complaint about damp and mould and asbestos in the property. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024, in which it said:
1. when she moved into the property, she removed the carpet which uncovered cracked asbestos tiles – the landlord attended the same day and moved her to a hotel
2. significant work was then completed, including the removal of asbestos floor tiles
3. on 11 April 2024 it was confirmed all remaining asbestos was in a good, manageable condition
4. it was in contact with her throughout this period but apologised for the stress caused
5. it offered £600 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the disturbance caused
  2. £100 to recognise the lack of advance notice of appointments
  3. £200 for the stress of being decanted into a hotel
On 10 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024, in which it said:
1. it acknowledged complaint handling delays at stage 2, which were due in part to awaiting scheduling of a panel meeting
2. it had completed asbestos work and fitted laminate flooring at the resident’s request, as well as completing damp and mould work
3. in June 2024 the resident moved home and found the shower had been left on, flooding the bathroom – it had been unable to determine how this happened, but had carried out repairs and replaced the bathroom floor
4. in August 2024 she reported a drainage smell – an inspection took place on 21 August 2024, but no issues were identified, and contractors could not smell anything
5. the resident felt issues should have been picked up while the property was void – it agreed this was the case and said it had provided feedback to the relevant teams
6. it had also reflected on its handling of move into temporary accommodation and identified a need to improve its decant policy – it said she should have been offered an alternative property for the period and should not have remained in a hotel throughout
7. it increased its total compensation offer to £5,170, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 offered at stage 1
  2. £750 to recognise its complaint handling failures
  3. £20 per week for 26 weeks that she was decanted to recognise costs incurred, totalling £520 – it had offered to reimburse any specific costs but had received no receipts from her and said this was its best estimate
  4. £750 to recognise that no other accommodation was offered
  5. £50 to cover water used by the shower being left on
  6. £1,500 to recognise that the damaged floor tiles should have been picked up during void checks
  7. £500 to recognise the time taken for repairs
  8. £500 to recognise its communication failures
8. during the panel meeting she had asked to be offered a new property as she said the current property and neighbourhood was unsuitable – it said it could not offer this as a resolution to her complaint and recommended she look into a mutual exchange
On 3 March 2025 the resident told us that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted to be moved to a bungalow and receive more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident made further reports of damp and mould after the landlord’s internal complaints process was concluded. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould up until she moved back into the property in August 2024. This is because we consider it reasonable for a landlord to address concerns in the first instance and the further issues have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
We have seen no evidence that the issues reported by the resident after the landlord’s stage 2 response should have been picked up during its handling of repairs prior to her moving back in. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould after September 2024, she has the option to raise this with it directly to allow it the opportunity to investigate this.
The resident has also raised concerns about her health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has told us that to resolve the complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. It is not within this Service’s remit to order a landlord to move a resident to an alternative property. This is because we cannot fairly assess if there are any other applicants which may be unfairly disadvantaged. If the resident would still like to move property, she has the option to contact the landlord directly to discuss her options.

Property condition and repairs

The landlord’s ‘lettable standards’ sets out the standard expected from its void properties before they are let. It says:
1. all floor coverings, apart from the kitchen and bathroom, will be removed
2. floors will be checked to ensure they are free from major damage
3. asbestos survey completed and removal carried out if required
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will arrange an appointment at a time that suits the resident. The policy does not provide a timeframe for when this appointment should take place, with the exception of emergency repairs, which should be attended to within 4 hours.
The resident was allocated the property in December 2023 and was told there was some asbestos present, some of which the landlord would be removing. She contacted her local MP who told landlord on 5 March 2024 that she was concerned about moving in with asbestos present. She moved in on 11 March 2024. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 15 March 2024. It said that it had liaised with the local authority about the asbestos and there were no outstanding concerns about the presence of asbestos.
On 14 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report a damp smell coming from a cupboard. She also said there was mould on the windows every morning. The landlord wrote to her the same day to acknowledge her report of damp and mould and said it would be in contact within 1 working day to arrange a visit. The landlord’s records do not show that it contacted her within this timeframe to book an appointment; however, an appointment was scheduled for 21 March 2024, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
On 20 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to raise her complaint. She said that there were broken asbestos tiles and explained that she could not have carpet due to her health condition. The landlord moved the resident into a hotel temporarily overnight to allow it to inspect the property, which was an appropriate step for it to take. The next day, it carried out a damp and mould inspection as well as inspecting the asbestos.
During the inspection the landlord did not find any mould, but did find a leak on the soil stack which was causing the smell the resident had reported. It agreed to remove the asbestos floor tiles, and said the resident would need to be placed in temporary accommodation throughout the work. This indicates that the landlord did not carry out its void check in line with its lettable standards, as it should have, removed the carpet, inspected the floor and found the damaged asbestos tiles.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to book an appointment for her to view a temporary property. She declined this property as she did not feel it was suitable for her health conditions. There is no evidence the landlord tried to identify any further potential properties, and the resident remained in a hotel, which was not appropriate.
On 9 April 2024 the property was cleared of the resident’s belongings. The floor tiles were removed on 10 April 2024, and the floor was screed the following day. The landlord submitted an application for wooden flooring to be laid as a goodwill gesture, which was later agreed. This was a good use of the landlord’s discretion. On 30 April 2024, she contacted the landlord and said there was still a damp smell in the bathroom cupboard. There is no evidence it responded to this at that time.
In its stage 1 response of 8 May 2024 the landlord said it had removed the asbestos floor tiles and confirmed all remaining asbestos was in a good, manageable condition. It apologised for the stress this matter had caused her but said it had been an unforeseen incident. It offered £300 compensation for the disturbance caused. While it was appropriate that it recognised the distress and inconvenience caused, its response was not proportionate, as it failed to identify that it had not carried out void checks in line with its lettable standards.
The landlord also acknowledged concerns the resident had raised about it failing to give prior notice of appointments and entering the property without her permission. It offered £100 compensation in relation to this, which was reasonable. It offered a further £200 compensation for the stress caused by the move into temporary accommodation and said it would review any receipts she provided for expenses incurred, which was also reasonable.
On 30 May 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she had returned to the property and found the shower running and the bathroom flooded. The landlord contacted its contractors, who all said they had no reason to turn on the shower. It is evident it tried to find out how this happened but was unable to do so. Given the available evidence, this investigation was proportionate, however we have not seen that it updated the resident at this time, which it should have.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 5 June 2024, which identified repair work required to repair the bathroom. On 7 June 2024 it let the resident know the repairs had been completed and the property was ready for her to move back in. However, the resident remained in the hotel as on 11 June 2024 an inspection found that the bathroom was still damp. The landlord should have ensured the property was dry before informing her it was ready. Its failure to do so caused avoidable distress for the resident.
Following further reports from the resident of a bad smell in the bathroom, the landlord attended to inspect the property on 12 August 2024. Its contractor found no internal blockages and recommended a drainage survey. The landlord did not consider a drain survey to be necessary but said it would keep the matter under review.
On 19 August 2024 the landlord told the resident that she would need to return to the property. It carried out a damp and mould survey on 21 August 2024 and did not find any issues. Its contractors were unable to smell the bad odour she had reported. The landlord explained that the stale smell would likely be due to the property sitting empty for some time.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024. It noted that she had said that the asbestos should have been identified during the void period. It said it agreed with this, and it had identified a lack of ownership and case management, which would be fed back to the relevant teams.
The landlord said it had also reflected on its handling of the move into temporary accommodation and identified the need to improve its decant policy. It said she should not have been left in a hotel for many months and should have been offered a further alternative property. It also noted that there were times when parking was not added to the booking. It apologised for her experience in temporary accommodation.
The landlord said that during stage 2 panel meeting she had asked to be offered a new property as the current one was not suitable for her due to its location. The landlord explained that it could not offer this as a complaint resolution. It advised her to speak with it about the mutual exchange process. The landlord’s allocations policy says that it will only consider management transfers in extenuating circumstances, such as fleeing domestic abuse or severe harassment. So, it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer this and instead signpost the resident to the mutual exchange process.
The landlord offered the resident additional compensation of £3,820 to recognise its failings, bringing its total offer to £4,420. Its stage 2 response offered a genuine apology to the resident. It also identified learnings and set out steps it would be taking to improve its policies.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved this issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology, and an offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
While there were failures by the landlord in relation to void checks and repairs carried out after the resident moved in, it has acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation and apology offered by the landlord for its failures was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy and was therefore reasonable.
Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the subsequent repairs.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling and resolution policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. If necessary, it can extend the deadline by 10 working days, but it should update the resident with the reason for the extension.
At stage 2 it says it will acknowledge the request within 5 working days. It will then arrange an appeal panel meeting, which it aims to be completed within 3 weeks of acknowledging the escalation. Following the meeting, the landlord will then send its stage 2 response, within 20 days of it acknowledging the escalation request. Again, it can extend the deadline, if it provides an explanation to the resident. It says this extension will never exceed a further 20 working days.
The landlord’s internal records of 20 March 2024 state that the resident had asked to raise a complaint. On 4 April 2024 she completed its online complaint form as she had not received any acknowledgement. From the evidence provided, it does not appear that the landlord raised the complaint until 4 April 2024, which was not appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint via email on 11 April 2024. This was in line with its policy based on the date it logged the complaint but was delayed due to its late logging. On 25 April 2024 it wrote to the resident, saying that it would need to extend the deadline to 10 May. It did not provide a clear reason for this delay, which was not appropriate. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024 within the extended deadline it gave.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 10 May 2024 and asked for the complaint to be escalated. It sent an acknowledgement of the request on 17 May 2024, in line with its policy. It said it would arrange a suitable date for a panel meeting. It did not make any further contact with her about this until 7 June 2024, when it asked her if she wanted to attend the meeting, which she confirmed she did. On 4 July 2024 the landlord wrote to her to inviting her to a panel meeting on 15 July 2024. This date was 8 weeks from when it acknowledged the complaint, not in line with its policy, and represented an unreasonable delay.
The resident was unable to make a meeting on 15 July 2024 as she was working. The meeting was rearranged for 23 July 2024 and went ahead on this date. On 29 July 2024 the landlord wrote to her to say it needed more time to finalise its response and extended the deadline to 9 August 2024. On 7 August 2024 it extended the deadline again to 15 August 2024. This was done to allow for the works to be completed before it finalised its response. We do not consider it reasonable for a landlord to keep a complaint open for repairs to be carried out, as it could set out what was outstanding in its response. So, this further delay was not reasonable.
On 15 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to apologise that it had not yet provided an outcome. On 6 September 2024 it contacted her again and said it was still finalising its response. It sent its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024. This was more than 4 months after the resident asked for it to be escalated, which was an unreasonable response time and not in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures and offered the resident £750 compensation. It has told this Service that it has since completed a review of its stage 2 process after this complaint, and several others, exceeded deadlines. It told us it has made changes to its policy, including removing the need for an appeals panel, which was a positive step for it to take.
While there were complaint handling failures by the landlord, it has acknowledged and apologised for these in its stage 2 response. It has also identified weaknesses in its complaints policy and taken steps to change this. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord for its failures was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of:
1. the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the subsequent repairs.
2. the resident’s complaint

Recommendations

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation offered during its internal complaints processes, if it has not already done so.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about damp and mould.