From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Homes Plus Limited (202312677)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312677

Homes Plus Limited

13 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the kitchen floor to be levelled.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured non shorthold tenancy. Her tenancy started on 8 October 2012. The resident is a tenant of the housing association. The property is described as a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023 to report it was possible the property was subsiding and the kitchen floor was uneven. She requested a property inspection.
  3. On the same day, the landlord asked for pictures of the kitchen floor.
  4. The resident responded on 14 February 2023, advising the pictures of the kitchen floor did not properly show the defect. The resident repeated her request for an inspection.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 March 2023 that the inspection had not been carried out. She believed the property was subsiding and, despite chasing for updates, the landlord had not responded. The resident went on to say her preferred outcome was for the property inspection to take place.
  6. The landlord provided its complaint response on 21 March 2023. The landlord:
    1. Said it had received her request for an inspection on 9 February 2023. On 14 February 2023, it had notified her an inspection would take place.
    2. Acknowledged the resident had chased the inspection on 22 February 2023.
    3. Partially upheld the complaint as the inspector had not contacted the resident.
    4. Apologised the resident had to complain to get the inspector to act.
    5. Arranged an appointment for 23 March 2023 to inspect the property.
    6. Said that after the completion of the inspection, it would raise any repairs necessary and the resident would be informed.
  7. The inspection took place on 23 March 2023. This found there was an open plan kitchen with a dining area. The kitchen was installed 6 years previously and the new back door (from the dining area to the rear garden) was done 4 years previously. There was no evidence of subsidence. The dining area:
    1. Was tiled by a friend of the resident.
    2. Sloped from the kitchen to the back door with a 50mm drop from the kitchen floor to the back wall.
    3. Had historic movement with no signs of cracking to plaster or the skirting board.
  8. The inspector did not agree to the resident’s request for the floor to be levelled. This was due to the position of the door frame which would need to be replaced. Also, the expense and disruption did not make it feasible to level the floor.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the next stage of the complaint procedure on 5 May 2023. She asked a series of questions about the tilling of the dining room floor, the size of room considered to be a dining room and why she was not consulted when the kitchen was fitted. The resident also asked whether the tiles could be removed and replaced with level flooring without affecting the back door. The resident concluded by saying she had a section of floor which was a mess she that did not cause.
  10. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 5 June 2023. It said its inspection on 23 March 2023 observed a 50mm slope to the floor, caused by historic building movement. There was no sign of current movement or subsidence. With regard to the resident’s request for the floor to be levelled, it maintained its decision not to level the floor as:
    1. Works involved would be costly, intrusive and impractical.
    2. The new floor level would breach the threshold of the back door.
    3. The resident had arranged herself for the dining area floor to be tiled after permission was granted.
    4. A condition of that permission was that the resident would be responsible for maintaining or replacing the tiles should they need removal to complete repairs.
    5. If it carried out works to level the floor, the door would be affected and floor tiles destroyed and not replaced.
  11. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to communicate with the landlord regarding its decision not to level the floor. This led to the resident making a new complaint to the landlord and it providing a further final complaint response on 4 December 2023. That complaint has not been bought to this Service for consideration and has not been considered as part of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord at the time events happened. It is noted that the landlord completed planned works to the kitchen in 2016. This included tiling the kitchen floor. The dining area was not tiled by the landlord. We are unable to investigate concerns about the kitchen renewal works given the time that has passed since then.
  2. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from February 2023 onwards. These were considered through the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the kitchen floor to be levelled

  1. Landlords have an obligation to maintain the home to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable time frame.
  2. The legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue. The landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is responsible. On receiving the resident’s report of a possible defect to the kitchen floor, it was reasonable for the landlord to request pictures of that defect to assess the action it was required to take, if any.
  3. In its final complaint response, the landlord said the resident had requested permission to tile the dining area. The landlord’s records show that in October 2021, the resident contacted it to obtain information about the tiles used in the kitchen area. The resident has not explained why her floor level concerns were not raised at the time she carried out works to the dining area.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy says that inspections will be carried out within 10 working days. The landlord agreed to arrange an inspection on 14 February 2023. The landlord accepted in its later complaint response that the inspection had not taken place, resulting in the resident having to raise a complaint. The failing resulted in the resident experiencing an unnecessary delay. The inspection took 27 working days.
  5. It is reasonable to expect any quality inspection to include checking the fabric of the building for faults. The inspection established that the property did not have subsidence and there was a 50mm slope from the dining area to the garden. The inspection concluded this was historic and there were no signs of movement, hazards or repairs that it was required to address. It was appropriate that the resident was informed of the outcome of inspection and given reasons for the landlord’s decision not to take further action.
  6. The landlord identified that works to level the floor would include the replacement of the door frame to prevent the back door threshold being breached. The landlord also considered this would involve costs for the resident as she was responsible for putting right any dining area floor tiles affected. Given the landlord had not identified a defect to be resolved, it was reasonable for it to consider these factors in its decision making.
  7. In summary, following its inspection, the landlord gave reasonable explanations for its decision not to level the kitchen floor. The landlord fairly determined that the kitchen floor did not represent a hazard and its condition did not trigger its repairing obligations. However, it delayed completing the inspection. This was identified in its initial complaint response but it did not consider further redress for this failing. For that reason, a finding of service failure has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the kitchen floor to be levelled.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the failure in its handling of the request for the kitchen floor to be levelled.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the timeframe set out above.