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

Accent Housing Limited (202434480)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434480

Accent Housing Limited

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A roof leak, damp and mould, and internal repairs.
    2. The resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable. She has depression, poor mental health, and anaphylaxis which can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction. Throughout her complaint to the landlord the resident has been assisted by her mother, who will also be referred to as the resident for ease of reading.
  2. Between February and July 2022 the landlord raised repairs to re-point brickwork, and repairs to replaster the living room and bedroom walls following previous damp and mould repairs. These repairs were marked as no-accesses. It completed a repair to the guttering, inspected the property on 22 September 2022 and said further unspecified repairs were needed. On 15 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to report a leak from the roof. She said her walls were soaking wet and had still not been re-plastered. The landlord noted she had a newborn baby. Between 23 March 2023 and 3 April 2023 it attempted to call the resident multiple times to book an inspection. It visited the property, but did not get access. During this time her family members called it on her behalf to report damp and mould and explain that she was vulnerable. The landlord said it had been trying to contact her.
  3. The landlord agreed an appointment for an inspection with the resident on 12 April 2023, attended and raised various repairs. It wrote to her on 16 May 2023 as it had not been able to contact her to book these in. Between 27 June 2023 and 23 November 2023 the landlord attempted further visits, for unrelated matters and agreed appointments, which it marked as no accesses. On 6 December 2023 the resident’s mother called the landlord. She said her daughter had bi-polar, which “causes her to disengage” and she was upset about the outstanding repairs. It agreed to inspect, which it did on 15 December 2023. It said it needed to inspect the roof, re-point the brickwork as it had previously done this incorrectly, and then complete internal re-plastering. It said the resident would need to temporarily move out, or be ‘decanted’, and arranged for its contractor to attend to scope on 4 January 2024.
  4. The resident called the landlord 3 times between 6 and 30 January 2024 to chase up the works as she had not heard further. On 2 February 2024 she made a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having to wait for repairs to be completed. She said her teenage daughter’s bedroom had been damp and needed replastering for over 2 years. Due to this she had had to move in with her grandmother.
    2. Multiple repairs were needed but no appointments had been made. However, the landlord’s contractors attend without warning. She said she needed a new roof before any internal repairs could be completed.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It raised a roof inspection repair on 19 March 2024. It provided its stage 1 response on 4 April 2024, in which it:
    1. Set out a brief history of repairs from 2021 onwards although it said it had limited information for historical repairs. It noted repairs which it had closed due to no accesses and lack of contact.
    2. Explained it had inspected on 12 April 2023 and had raised repairs. It had inspected the roof on 15 May 2023 and repaired the guttering (no evidence provided). However, it said it had not been able to contact her to discuss the works. Its contractor had quoted for the works on 23 January 2024, but it rejected the quote. It said a new contractor would quote on 5 April 2024.
    3. Apologised for the delays in repairing the roof. However, it explained it would not offer any compensation as many of the delays were caused by the resident not allowing access. It also reminded her that she must allow access for appointments under her tenancy agreement.
  6. On 5 April 2024 the resident called the landlord, said its response was factually inaccurate and that she wanted to escalate the complaint. It said she needed to do this in writing. She called it again on 30 April 2024 to chase the roof repairs and escalation and sent an email. She said it had not considered her mental health, she was depressed, there was damp everywhere and no repairs had been started. The landlord acknowledged escalation the following day. She chased the repairs and for a complaint response on 29 May 2024. It tried to visit on 3 June 2024 but there was a no access. It inspected the property and discussed the complaint with the resident on 13 June 2024. It noted there was still a roof leak, which had caused damaged to the resident’s possessions. It chased internally to have scaffolding put up on 25 June 2024. It provided its stage 2 response that day, in which it:
    1. Accepted it had failed to inspect during its stage 1 investigation. It had failed to consider any service failure in its handling of repairs or her complaint. It said it had also failed to consider the impact outstanding repairs had had on her or damage to her home and possessions.
    2. Confirmed the repairs needed following its inspection. It said it had raised a repair for the roof which it expected to complete by 5 July 2024, after which it would raise the internal repairs.
    3. Apologised for the inconvenience and offered £2,603.48 compensation as a rent reduction for loss of a bedroom, £650 for distress and inconvenience, and £1,090 for damaged possessions. It also offered £150 for poor complaint handling. The total compensation offered was £4,493.48.
  7. The landlord put scaffolding up on 25 July 2024. It is not known when roofing works started but they were underway by 20 August 2024. The resident and the landlord discussed the works during calls between 30 August 2024 and 3 September 2024. It agreed to decant her and complete the remaining works during that time. The resident was decanted to a hotel on 13 October 2024 and works started. The landlord said it had completed all repairs on 23 October 2024, and the resident returned home. However, she reported a further roof leak on 11 November 2024. The landlord inspected and raised repairs for the guttering and re-pointing between 18 and 20 November 2024. It carried out guttering repairs on 5 December 2024. Between 23 December 2024 and 13 January 2025 the resident reported further water ingress, and damage to possessions. She made a new stage 1 complaint on 24 February 2025, and the landlord responded on 31 March 2025. It said it had completed repairs and offered £676.04 further compensation.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised within her complaint to the landlord that her mental health has been negatively affected by the leak, damp and mould being present in the property. While this Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. Additionally, the resident raised a second stage 1 complaint which the landlord responded to in March 2025. As the complaint was not escalated and/or the landlord has not responded at stage 2, that complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, the Ombudsman may not consider that complaint or the issues raised within it as part of this investigation, under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. The resident could ask her landlord to escalate her complaint and respond at stage 2 of its process if she wished to do so. Equally, the Ombudsman has not been able to consider other non-directly related events which have taken place after the end of the complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak, damp and mould, and internal repairs

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, external and internal walls and guttering. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its policy says it will make repairs appointments based on urgency and resident’s needs. It will send a reminder the day before and on the day of the appointment. The policy says it will make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours, and complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Its repairs policy in use at the time did not refer to damp and mould, however, it had a separate procedure.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says it will evaluate each report of damp, mould or condensation. It will ask residents to provide photographs and will direct them towards information about preventing or minimising damp and mould. It will send out a “damp and mould eradication kit” unless the resident has a respiratory condition, in which case it will complete a mould wash. If this does not resolve the issue, or the resident reports it again, the landlord will arrange an inspection. Its surveyor will produce a survey report, including photographs and damp meter readings. It will then write to the resident within 5 working days with its findings and the repairs it will complete.
  3. When the resident reported repairs in 2022 the landlord raised these but there were no accesses. However, following its inspection on 22 September 2022 it failed to raise further repairs despite saying these were needed. Although it did attempt to arrange an inspection when she reported a roof leak in March 2023 it delayed. Under its policy it could have classed this as an emergency repair, but it failed to. Positively, it did not close the repair down as per its repairs procedure for no accesses, but arranged an inspection, which it attended. Positively it raised repairs but was unable to contact the resident to book these. Considering the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable, it should have considered booking the appointments at the end of the inspection while with her in person. This may have prevented further delays. It wrote to her on 16 May 2023, but took no action after this which was a failing. There is no evidence of its contact attempts or that it attended to attempt to gain access as per its procedure.
  4. The landlord took no further action until 27 June 2023, when it started to attempt to engage and visit the resident relating to other matters including rent arrears. It is not clear from the evidence whether it had closed her repairs down, paused them or had forgotten about them. Positively, when the resident’s mother called it and explained why the resident had not engaged, the landlord arranged an inspection and a quote for the works. This was in line with its repairs policy. It also correctly considered her physical medical condition and agreed to a decant. However, it failed to keep the resident updated. By the date of its stage 1 response, on 4 April 2024, nearly a year had passed since she had reported the roof leak, and over 3 months since its inspection. It said it had rejected the quote and arranged an appointment for a new one, but it had unreasonably delayed in making its decision and the new appointment which were failings. It also failed to accept any failings within its stage 1 response.
  5. Despite the resident chasing the landlord, its reinspection, and her escalating her complaint, it still took the landlord over 3 months to put up scaffolding after it stage 1 response. This was over 7 months since its inspection in November 2023 which identified the works. This was an unreasonable and unacceptable delay, which was not in compliance with its repairs policy or any notion of a reasonable timeframe. While it then completed roofing works in August 2024, it failed to decant the resident or complete the internal repairs until October 2024. It then had to recall re-pointing and guttering works in December 2024. It completed the works one year after its inspection, and one year and 9 months after she reported the roof leak. Notwithstanding its difficulties in gaining access on occasions, this was still an unacceptable delay not in compliance with its policy or procedure.
  6. Throughout the period the landlord also failed to follow its damp and mould procedure, and there is no evidence it took action to try to minimise moisture or mould prior to its stage 2 response.
  7. Additionally, the resident is vulnerable, has health conditions, and her mother told the landlord she has bi-polar. She therefore may be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord was under a duty to consider how the outstanding works, and delays, could have affected her more as a disabled person. The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider how its decisions and actions may impact a person with a protected characteristic, such as disability, and to consider making reasonable adjustments. This is called having due regard.
  8. The Ombudsman cannot make decisions on whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 like a court can. However, there is no evidence the landlord had due regard in relation to the delayed repairs, its handling of no accesses and contact difficulties. There is no evidence it considered any ways it could have approached booking appointments differently, or any evidence it sent reminders as per its repairs policy. There also appears to be no ownership for the repairs either before, during, or after the complaints process. Instead, there appears to have been multiple members of staff and different departments involved, adding to the confusion, delays and frustration. It would have been helpful, once it identified the complexity of the repairs, or as a reasonable adjustment, to have nominated one named member of staff to manage the repairs and contact with the resident. It could have given direct contact details for that staff member to the resident to assist in better communication.
  9. While the landlord may not a public body, it may have been carrying out a public function when managing repairs to its social housing stock. In this respect, it should have had due regard to its obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The resident explained that her daughter had been unable to live with her, due to the condition of the bedroom. This disrupted their normal family life and had a negative impact on their relations. There is no evidence the landlord had due regard to the resident and her daughter’s right to her home, private and family life, when it allowed for long delays in completing repairs.
  10. Positively, within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted some of its failings and apologised. It said how it would put things right and offered reasonable compensation of £3,253. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies. Had the landlord completed the repairs within a reasonable and policy timeframe following its stage 2 response, it would have resolved the complaint satisfactorily, but it did not.
  11. Therefore, there was maladministration, as opposed to severe maladministration. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has offered additional compensation of £676 for further loss of amenity for the bedroom after the end of the complaints process. Therefore, an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble. This amount is lower than what would have otherwise been ordered to take into account the compensation the landlord has already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions

  1. The landlord did not have a policy on its approach to reports of damaged possessions at the time of the complaint. It has since implemented one after the end of the complaints process.
  2. The resident reported that the leak, damp and mould had damaged her possessions as part of her complaint escalation. The landlord asked her to provide a list and evidence, which she did. She said her carpet, bed, 2 mattresses, 2 sets of curtains and 2 blinds had been damaged. She also set out how much each item cost totalling £1,090. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered to compensate the resident for this amount. It did so even though it noted the resident was not able to provide receipts for the items. It displayed the dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its complaints policy timeframe. However, it responded 43 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time which allowed for 10 working days. It also failed to request an extension of time, which it could have done under its policy and the Code.
  2. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint, the landlord told her she had to do this in writing, which was a significant failing. This was not in line with its policy, which does not require complaints to be made in writing. Additionally, within the stage 1 response letter the landlord says the resident simply needs to “contact us” to request escalation. When she emailed it, the landlord acknowledged escalation. It provided its stage 2 response 55 working days after she first asked to escalate her complaint, and 38 working days after acknowledgement. Both were outside of its complaints policy timeframe of 20 working days, and in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code (or paragraph 6.14 of the new Code then in use).
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its failings and offered compensation for how it handled its approach and investigation into the resident’s complaint at stage 1. However, it failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for its delayed responses or its initial failing to escalate. There was maladministration which caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.
  2. The landlord’s complaint investigation, and the Ombudsman’s investigation, have been hampered by the landlord’s lack of or poor-quality knowledge and information management. Specifically, the landlord has not created, retained, or provided:
    1. Detailed repairs records which clearly show date raised, date completed, repairs completed, before or after photographs, or photographs following no accesses as per its procedure for every repair.
    2. Inspection or survey reports, with photographs, as required under its damp and mould procedure. No such reports were provided.
  3. There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of a roof leak, damp and mould, and internal repairs.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £300 additional compensation made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the roof leak, damp and mould, and internal repairs.
      2. £100 for the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Pay directly to the resident the £4,493.48 it offered at stage 2 and the £676 it offered after the end of the complaints process or provide evidence if it has already done so.
    4. Carry out a full inspection of the property, by an internal or external surveyor, to confirm all repairs have been completed. The surveyor is to produce a report, with photographs, and provide a copy to this Service. If the landlord has difficulty in contacting the resident, or gaining access for the survey, it is to provide proof of its multiple attempts.
    5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.