Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Accent Housing Limited (202329781)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329781

Accent Housing Limited

26 June 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 reports of:
    1. A fallen tree and damage caused to her fence
    2. Delays in the boiler installation
    3. Mould on the bathroom ceiling
    4. A window leak in the bedroom
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
  2. On 22 November 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She reported that a tree from the neighbouring garden fell into her garden on 20 September 2023, damaging the fence. She also mentioned that the contractor missed a scheduled pre-assessment appointment for a new boiler on 21 November 2023 and did not provide an explanation or follow-up. Additionally, she reported other repairs, including a patch of mould on her bathroom ceiling, which she thought resulted from a missing roof tile, and an intermittent leak by the bedroom window.
  3. On 7 December 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, confirming that it would clear the tree and repair the fence, and would provide a completion date for this. It said on 6 December 2023, a surveyor left a voicemail for the resident to schedule an inspection of the bedroom window. The landlord also confirmed that the boiler would be replaced and would inform the resident of an installation date.
  4. On 13 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint, saying that the tree removal and fence repair had been raised on 13 November 2023 with a 28-day target, which had expired on 11 December 2023 without action or communication.
  5. In a stage 2 response issued on 16 February 2024, the landlord apologised for the delays. It confirmed that:
    1. it completed the tree removal and fence repair on 5 January 2024
    2. it acknowledged that the contractor did not attend a scheduled roof and bathroom mould assessment on 30 November 2023, which did not meet its expected standards
    3. it had assigned a new contractor on 28 December 2023, scheduled the roof survey for 15 February 2024, and planned the bathroom ceiling mould repair for 21 February 2024
    4. the resident delayed the bedroom window leak inspection by not returning a voicemail from 6 December 2023; however, it arranged an appointment for 20 February 2024
    5. the contractor completed the new boiler installation on 16 January 2024 
    6. it found no record of a stage 2 escalation request before 18 January 2024 and acknowledged that internal communication failures delayed the recognition of the complaint escalation
    7. because of the service failures and the complaint handling delay it offered £150 compensation
  6. On 12 March 2024, the resident said that the fence had not been adequately repaired and that repairs were still pending following a contractor’s visit on 15 February 2024. She requested £200 in compensation for the ongoing delays, which the landlord agreed to.
  7. In March 2024, the resident contacted us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She explained that the landlord rescheduled the appointment to address the bathroom ceiling for 19 March 2024, but all her concerns remained unresolved.
  8. We have been unable to verify with both the resident and the landlord if these issues were resolved. Therefore, our investigation will focus on the period from November 2023 to March 2024, when we know the issues remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a fallen tree and damage caused to her fence

  1. Under the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy, it categorises fencing and external hazards as non-emergency repairs with a target completion timescale of 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the request to complete the tree and fence works on 13 November 2023, setting a completion deadline of 11 December 2023 (28 calendar days). However, the landlord did not complete the works until 5 January 2024, which was 53 days later and exceeded the policy target by 25 days.
  3. During this period, the resident reported a lack of communication and follow-up from the landlord. The landlord did not actively check the progress of the works or make reasonable efforts to update the resident on the delays or any revised completion times. This contradicts the expectations outlined in the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy, which require the landlord to keep residents informed of repair progress, especially during delays. The lack of communication left the resident uncertain about whether the landlord was addressing the matter, which contributed to her dissatisfaction. The delay also caused avoidable inconvenience in the use of her garden.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and committed to internal learning. It offered £150 compensation in its stage 2 response in February 2024 and increased it to £200 in early March 2024 as a goodwill payment for the cumulative delays across the case. However, it did not specify how it calculated this figure or which specific service failures it related to. Without this clarity, we consider the £200 offer as cumulative redress for the acknowledged delays and inconvenience.
  5. Due to a 25-day delay in removing the tree and repairing the fence, along with a lack of communication, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, apologise and commit to better service. We consider the redress offered to be reasonable and proportionate in these circumstances, aligning with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair -Put things right – Learn from outcomes. We have therefore found that the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of the matter.
  6. The resident raised concerns in March 2024 about the quality of the fence repair. She said that contractors were only instructed to reattach the existing fence panels, rather than replace them. She mentioned that the fence is bent, buckled, and rotten and provided photos which showed its condition.
  7. The landlord has a responsibility under its Repairs Policy to keep external structures in a safe and serviceable condition. This did not form part of the original complaint so it has not been investigated. Given the photographic evidence and ongoing concerns, we recommend that the landlord reassess the situation if it has not already done so.

Report of delays in the boiler replacement

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy confirms that boiler replacements are classified as routine repairs with a target completion timescale of 28 calendar days. Faster response times are offered when a resident is left without heating or hot water. For planned boiler upgrades, the landlord aims to complete the work in a day.
  2. In this case, a contractor did not attend a scheduled pre-installation assessment on 21 November 2023. The landlord did not promptly explain or communicate a revised appointment date, which was unreasonable and caused uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident.
  3. However, after the resident reported a leak on 22 November 2023, the landlord escalated the works and arranged to expedite the boiler installation. There is no evidence that the landlord left the resident without heating or hot water, so the 28-day routine repair timescale remained appropriate.
  4. The new boiler installation occurred on 16 January 2024. While this slightly exceeded the 28-day target, the timeframe was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly as the landlord responded to the leak with appropriate escalation and completed the installation without further delay.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the missed appointment, apologised, and confirmed it had referred the issue for internal review and service improvement. These actions demonstrate recognition of the service failure and a commitment to learning, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
  6. The landlord also offered £200 compensation as cumulative redress for the wider complaint. This offer is considered reasonable and proportionate to the overall failures and the landlord’s responsive actions. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in its handling of the matter.

Reports of mould on the bathroom ceiling

  1. The resident reported a patch of mould on her bathroom ceiling on 28 November 2023 and suggested that a missing roof tile may have caused it. Under the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy, issues involving water ingress or mould require assessment and prompt action if they affect the building’s fabric or pose a health risk. The policy also emphasises that urgent repairs require responses within appropriate timeframes to prevent worsening damage.
  2. The landlord raised a repair order within 2 days, which was an appropriate initial response. However, the contractor missed the scheduled appointment on 21 November 2023, and the landlord did not reassign the job until 28 December 2023, over a month later. This delay meant the resident continued to suffer from a reported mould issue and potentially unresolved roof defect during the winter months, increasing the risk of deterioration to the property.
  3. The landlord rescheduled the works for mid-to-late February 2024, leaving the issue unresolved for 3 months. The resident then reported that the appointment was moved to 19 March 2024. However, the landlord provided no evidence to explain the delay or confirm that the works were completed or the issue resolved. This extended delay from November 2023 to at least March 2024 exceeded the expected timeframe for a routine repair.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the missed appointment, apologised, and said that it took internal steps to address contractor performance. It included this issue in the £200 cumulative compensation offer. While this shows some recognition of the failure, the handling of the problem itself was inadequate. The landlord did not investigate the cause of the mould within a reasonable timeframe, did not communicate clearly about missed appointments or revised timescales, and did not provide evidence that the mould issue was resolved.
  5. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported mould issue. Although the landlord promptly initiated a repair order, it did not follow up after a missed appointment, did not investigate the potential cause of the mould, and allowed the problem to remain unresolved for over 4 months. Additionally, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and it provided no evidence that the repairs were completed. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and included this issue in the overall compensation offer, these actions did not sufficiently address the distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty experienced by the resident.
  6. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 as recognition of these failures and to reinspect the property to ensure the matter is fully resolved. This amount aligns with our Remedies Guidance for cases involving failures that adversely affected the resident.

Bedroom window leak

  1. On 28 November 2023, the resident reported an intermittent leak by her bedroom window, saying that the issue had recurred after an earlier repair. The landlord tried to contact the resident and left a voicemail on 6 December 2023 to arrange an inspection. This was an appropriate initial response, taken within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. However, evidence suggests that the resident did not respond to the voicemail, and the landlord did not follow up in writing. While this was not a formal requirement, it would have been good practice for the landlord to ensure the repair progressed, particularly given the potential for water ingress to worsen.
  3. On 16 February 2024, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it arranged an appointment for 20 February 2024; however, the resident said that she was unavailable. There is no evidence confirming whether the landlord offered an alternative date or whether it later completed the repair. Although the landlord should have followed up more proactively after the voicemail, the resident’s failure to confirm her availability partly caused the lack of progress.
  4. In summary, the investigation found no maladministration in how the landlord handled the reported leak from the bedroom window. The landlord acted by trying to arrange an inspection and left a voicemail within a reasonable timeframe. While it would have been good practice for the landlord to follow up in writing after receiving no response, this was not a formal requirement.
  5. The resident did not confirm her availability, and there is no evidence to show that she arranged access or that the issue was resolved. Given the lack of engagement from the resident, the landlord did not progress the matter further. However, to ensure the repair has been properly addressed, we recommend that the landlord contact the resident to check whether the issue is still outstanding and take follow-up action.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days of receipt and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt. These timeframes are also reflected in our Complaints Handling Code (the Code) which emphasises the importance of timely escalation and resolution.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 22 November 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 December 2023, within the required timescale and in line with its policy.
  3. On 13 December 2023, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 due to ongoing dissatisfaction and outstanding repairs. However, there is no evidence that landlord acknowledged or acted upon this request until 18 January 2024, a delay of over 5 weeks. This failure to promptly record and escalate the complaint was not in accordance with either the landlord’s policy or the Code and led to unnecessary and avoidable delay in progressing the complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 February 2024, more than 9 weeks after the resident’s escalation request and over 4 weeks after formally acknowledging it. This was well outside the 20 working-day timeframe required, a departure from its own policy and the Code expectations.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response, attributing it to internal communication failures. It referred the issue to the relevant team for review, but did not explain the specific actions taken to prevent similar failures or how it would embed learning. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord was aware that repairs remained outstanding; yet it did not commit to follow-up or resolution, missing an opportunity to address and resolve the complaint. According to the Code, landlords are expected to.
    1. acknowledge and escalate complaints promptly
    2. keep residents informed throughout the process; and
    3. demonstrate learning from complaint outcomes.
  6. The landlord did not meet these expectations in this case. Had it done so it may have avoided a service failure finding.
  7. The landlord offered a cumulative compensation payment of £200 for service failures, including failures in handling complaints, but did not explain how this figure was calculated. Because the significant delay and inconvenience caused were unacceptable, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £75. This amount aligns with our Remedies Guidance for cases where complaint handling failures have a short-duration impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A fallen tree and damage caused to her fence
    2. Delays in the boiler installation
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould on the bathroom ceiling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a window leak in the bedroom.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised in writing to the resident for the failures we have found
    2. Paid the resident £175, made up of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the mould in the bathroom
      2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the complaint.
    3. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money owed
  2. Contacted the resident and confirmed whether the mould issue has been fully resolved and decided if any further work is needed.
  3. Confirmed the outcome of its internal service review and any actions taken to reduce missed appointments, improve contractor communication with residents, and reduce the delays caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pays the £200 compensation offered in March 2024, if this has not already been paid. Findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis that this money has been or will be paid.
    2. Contacts the resident to get an update on the bedroom window leak and takes appropriate action, if necessary, to address the problem.
    3. Reinspects the fence and assesses whether it is still in a safe condition. Provides a written response to the resident setting out its findings and confirming if any further work is needed.