Connexus Homes Limited (202316468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316468

Connexus Homes Limited

10 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:
   1. The replacement of the heating system and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request for soundproofing.
   3. Request for a replacement kitchen.
   4. The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in November 2020.
3. The resident’s child has a health condition and is visually impaired. The landlord has recorded these on its systems.
4. On 2 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying issues that she previously raised with it on 7 April 2022 remained unresolved. Her concerns were about:
   1. The cost of running the storage heaters.
   2. Noise transference and the lack of insulation/sound proofing between her flat and the flat above. The resident video sound recordings.
   3. Mould in the property (kitchen). The resident attached photos of mould.
5. The resident acknowledged that the landlord told her it had not received her 7 April 2022 complaint. But she said that the issues were now “far worse” and needed attention. The resident asked for the landlord to contact her as a matter of urgency.
6. On 13 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said despite several inspections and surveys, the heating, damp and mould had not been resolved. She stated:
   1. Regarding the heating system, she had been without heating for 4 months which was unacceptable. As air source heaters (ASH) needed planning approval, she would like oil heating installed as this would be quicker.
   2. Damp and mould had caused dampness to her possessions including her bed and bedding, curtains and carpets. Her kitchen cupboards were “soaking” with crockery “all wet”.
   3. Due to the impact of the issues on her son’s health, he was not living with her.
   4. Its communication was poor. She had to chase the landlord “on numerous occasions” as it did not return her calls.
   5. It had delayed resolving these issues and she believed it was not taking them seriously.
7. The resident requested compensation to help with the cost of running temporary heaters and for the inconvenience and delays.
8. On 18 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and on 19 April 2023 the resident asked to add a kitchen replacement to her complaint. She said this was due to the cupboards smelling and the doors warping. She provided photos in support of her complaint. On 27 April 2023 the landlord inspected the property.
9. On 17 May 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This stated regarding:
   1. Heating. Once the resident’s heating was “condemned” it provided temporary heaters and offered a replacement heating system however she not happy with the system offered and alternative options had to be explored. Further to discussions with her, it had agreed to install an oil central heating system. A survey for these works was completed and the quotation had been approved. Its contractor would be in contact with her within 2 weeks to discuss the install and arrange a date for fitting.
   2. Soundproofing due to neighbouring noise. The resident had provided medical evidence to show soundproofing was needed. It was investigating this and once it had identified a suitable system that it was confident could help with noise transference it would contact her (within 3 months).
   3. Condition of kitchen. Her kitchen was not due to be surveyed until 2026/27. Even then, if deemed to be in a good condition, this would not be renewed at that time.
10. On 4 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy about the progress of the repairs. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request and on 1 August 2023 provided its stage 2 final response. This stated regarding:
    1. Heating. It acknowledged the resident had endured 8 months of heating which had resulted in debt. However, her refusal of its offer to replace her storage heaters for new night storage heaters delayed any rectification of her heating. It subsequently explored her request for ASH and the resident accepted that as her home was in a block of flats, planning permission was needed and was taking 12 to 16 weeks. It subsequently installed an oil heating system on 19 July 2023.
    2. Heat loss payment. It believed the resident wanted heat loss payment after heating installation however during its call with her, she had clarified this was not the case. The landlord apologised for this. It said it was willing to pay the full amount of the heat loss payment as compensation. It had calculated this to be £2,162.50 in total.
    3. Damage caused to the resident’s belongings because of damp and mould. The heat loss payment awarded had taken this into consideration.
    4. Request for a replacement kitchen. It reiterated the response given at stage 1. The landlord however said the resident should report any repairs to its repair team.
11. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised that the resident had at times experienced poor communication and late responses in “several instances”. There had been numerous emails exchanged but she had had to chase answers and updates. It offered the resident £50 in compensation.
12. On 4 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to us. She said she was unhappy with the length of time taken to replace her heating system. Damp and mould had caused damage to her possessions, and she was disappointed with its decision not to replace her kitchen. She said soundproofing to the ceilings had still not been completed.
13. On 20 February 2025 the landlord told us the resident moved out of the property (temporarily) on 25 January 2025 to accommodate the soundproofing works. It said it was awaiting a start date from the appointed contractor, following the asbestos removal. The landlord also said it had recently agreed to replace the resident’s kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. In her complaints and communication with the landlord, the resident told it that the complaint issues were affecting her mental health and her son’s physical health.
15. This Service does not have medical expertise and therefore we are unable to consider if any acts or failures by a landlord impacted a person’s mental or physical health. This is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may want to consider seeking legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. However, we have considered if the landlord took account of any vulnerabilities while handling the concerns raised.

Landlord’s handling of the replacement heating system and damp and mould reports – replacement heating system

16. The landlord is responsible to keep in good repair and working order heating installations. On 2 October 2022 the resident raised concerns regarding the performance of her storage heaters. She told the landlord they did not adequately heat the property. On 18 October 2022 the landlord raised a job for an electrical routine repair with a target date of 15 November 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for responsive routine repairs. However, its electrician did not attend until 15 December 2022. During this appointment, they deemed that the performance of the heating system was sufficiently poor, a replacement would be required.
17. The landlord’s failure to act within its 20-working day timescale was inappropriate and caused a delay in the landlord identifying that a new heating system was needed. Also, the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household as such the delay indicates it failed to consider the resident’s circumstances. However, within a day of condemning the heating system, the landlord provided the resident with fan heaters. Given the time of year, it was important that the landlord took steps to mitigate the impact of no working heating system as such this action was appropriate.
18. The landlord called the resident a few days later to book a survey for new storage heaters however, she explained she did not want this type of heating due to the cost of electricity and impact on son’s health (asthma). It is evident that the landlord agreed to the resident’s request for an ASH as an alternative. The landlord’s investment standard states it will look to replace storage heaters with energy efficient modern equivalents, including air source heat pumps. Therefore, in agreeing to an energy efficient alternative, the landlord acted appropriately.
19. Its heating contractor completed an ASH survey on 5 January 2023. However, due to no updates from the landlord, the resident contacted it on 18 January 2023 and again on 3 February 2023 to query the installation date. The landlord contacted its contractor on 3 February 2023 to chase the install however was informed of supply issues and also that planning permission was required for this type of heating which could take 15 to16 weeks. On 6 February 2023, it contacted the resident to inform her of these issues.
20. Given the urgency of the situation, we would expect the landlord to have contacted its heating contractor to chase the resident’s install at an earlier stage than it did. The landlord’s delay in doing this was unreasonable.
21. Further, it is clear that over the next 2 months little progress was made in arranging for the ASH system to be installed. Its internal records show that there were different opinions within the landlord’s organisation as to whether this type of heating system was suitable for the resident’s block. On 31 March 2023, the landlord noted it was still waiting for a decision on this from its manager. Bearing in mind that the resident by this stage had been without a working heating system for more than 3 months, the lack of any meaningful action was unreasonable. There was also insufficient communication with the resident during this timeframe which meant she had to keep contacting the landlord. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord while handling the replacement heating system.
22. In her escalation request of 13 April 2023, the resident explained that due to conditions at the property including no heating and damp and mould (considered further below), her child was not living with her at the property. The resident was unhappy about the lack of progress with installing the ASH and requested oil heating be installed instead as she believed this would be quicker than waiting for ASH.
23. The landlord arranged to meet with the resident at the property on 27 April 2023 to discuss the replacement heating system (amongst other concerns). This action was appropriate. During this meeting the landlord discussed the possibility of a combi oil fired boiler and what this involved. It was agreed between the parties that this would be a better option. In its stage 1 response issued on 17 May 2023 the landlord confirmed an oil central heating system would be installed and that it had approved the external contractor’s survey and quote. The landlord said they would contact her within 2 weeks to arrange a date for install. This was reasonable and the oil heating system was installed approximately 2 months later on 19 July 2023.
24. Therefore, once the parties agreed on the combi oil filled boiler as the replacement system, this was installed within its 12-week timescale for planned maintenance repairs. However, we are mindful that it took the landlord more than 7 months from the date it first identified the resident’s storage heaters needed replacing, to provide a solution. It is recognised that exploring alternative heating systems can take additional time as issues may arise that may not have been foreseen. In the resident’s case it was the need for planning permission in relation to the ASH. However, even when taking this into account, on balance the overall timeframe taken to replace the heating system was unreasonable.

Damp and mould

25. On 2 October 2022, the resident reported that there was mould in the lounge, kitchen, bathroom and hallway. On 18 October 2022 the landlord raised a job for a damp and mould inspection with a target date of 15 November 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for responsive routine repairs. It is evident that the inspection took place however, no follow-on work was raised. There is no record of the outcome of this visit and the landlord has not explained this.
26. Damp and mould is a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Therefore, the landlord has a duty to ensure the property is free of damp and mould. This is echoed in the landlord’s planned maintenance policy. Therefore, the lack of meaningful action taken following the resident’s 2 October 2022 report to identify the cause and resolve damp and mould, was inappropriate.
27. Following further mould reports from the resident and photos sent to the landlord on 13 December 2022 showing the areas affected, the landlord raised a job for its property surveyor to attend. This action was appropriate, and its property surveyor attended on 5 January 2022 to survey the damp and mould. He recommended that the landlord’s damp and mould contractor inspect for a possible installation of positive input ventilation unit in the hallway of the flat to combat mould and condensation issues. He noted that any radiators installed as part of the new heating system would also assist with resolving damp and mould. While it raised a job for this work with its contractor on 12 January 2023 that had a 20-working day timescale, the survey was not carried out until 23 March 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord chasing its contractor to complete the inspection in the interim. This shows a lack of oversight by the landlord when handling this issue. And a further delay for the resident who was impacted by the damp and mould.
28. The landlord’s repair records indicate work to stain block the inside wall near the front door was completed on 20 March 2023 by a different team to address damp and mould in this area. However, the lack of any action taken to address the damp and mould in other areas was unreasonable as it had been more than 5 months since the resident’s initial report. The lack of heating at the property would have contributed to mould growth during this timeframe. The landlord should have taken further steps to mitigate against this during this period, for example applying anti-mould wash to all areas affected. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
29. The damp and mould report dated 23 March 2023, recommended that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were upgraded. Also, for mould wash and anti-mould paint to be applied to affected walls in front porch and living room. However, there were delays in this work being completed. The walls were treated on 4 May 2023 however the new fans were not installed until 20 July 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord chasing the contractor in relation to these works until 19 June 2023. Again, this shows poor oversight of the works by the landlord which was unreasonable.
30. In summary the landlord took steps to investigate and address the resident’s damp and mould reports. We note that the resident recently confirmed to this service that the measures taken together with her new heating system have eradicated the damp and mould. However, the timeframe taken by the landlord to provide a solution was prolonged and therefore unreasonable. It is indicative of the landlord not taking its obligations sufficiently seriously and of it failing to take into account vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.
31. In its stage 2 final response issued on 1 August 2023, the landlord offered the resident heat loss payment in the total sum of £2,162.50. This was based on £12.50 per day (winter months) from 15 December 2022 to 31 March 2023 and £7.50 per day (summer months) from 1 April 2023 to 19 July 2023.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will provide heat loss payment at £12.50 per day during winter months between 1 November and 31 March and that outside of these dates, payments were considered on a case-by-case basis. The resident confirmed that the total heat loss payment provided covered the additional costs she incurred by running the temporary electric heaters during this period. Therefore, its offer including the £7.50 per day from 1 April 2023 to 19 July 2023, was reasonable in the circumstances.
33. However, apart from £50 in compensation offered in recognition of its poor communication, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for distress, inconvenience, time or trouble caused by failings while handling the replacement heating system and damp and mould reports. This was inappropriate. Given the impact caused to the resident by its failings, we would expect the landlord to offer this type of compensation in the circumstances.
34. In its final response, the landlord also said its offer of heat loss payment took into account the residents request for compensation for damp and mould damage caused to possessions. Its compensation procedure document states that it expects residents to take out contents insurance to insure their personal possessions. This also refers to circumstances where a resident can submit an insurance liability claim to the landlord’s insurers. As the landlord did not make any separate compensation offer in relation to the resident’s possessions damaged by damp and mould during its complaints process, we would expect it explain to the resident the options for claiming for damage caused to possession via an insurance claim. As the landlord did not do so, this aspect of its response was unreasonable.
35. It is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident a further £600 in compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings while handling the replacement heating system and damp and mould reports. This falls within the range recommended for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance whereby there has been a significant impact on the resident which is appropriate here.

Request for soundproofing

36. On 2 October 2022 the resident raised a concern about noise transference from the upstairs flat which was a privately owned flat. She said while it was normal everyday noise, due to no soundproofing between her ceiling and the floorboards in the flat above, she could very clearly hear every noise from the upstairs’ flat. The resident explained that her son had recently been diagnosed as severely visually impaired and struggled to cope with loud noises, including those coming from upstairs.
37. During a call with the resident on 18 October 2022 the landlord explained that the property was built in 1955, and that there was no legislative requirement for sound proofing between the floors. It explained soundproofing was not something it usually offered. The resident continued to report noise transference over the next 2 months also explaining it was affecting her sleep. In the circumstances, particularly given the vulnerabilities in her household, we would expect the landlord to explore if there were any ways to reduce the noise transference.
38. There is no evidence of the landlord inspecting the property over the next few months to assess the noise transference. Its internal records show the landlord considered undertaking a soundproof survey however there is no evidence of this taking place. Therefore, its failure to take any action to investigate or resolve the resident’s reports was a failing.
39. During an inspection at the property on 27 April 2023 the resident re-raised the issue of noise transference and the landlord indicated it may be able to provide soundproofing to her bedroom ceiling. However, on 2 May 2023 the resident requested soundproofing to all ceilings, reiterating that her son was sensitive to noise due to him being partially sighted. On 5 May 2023, the landlord agreed that if the resident could provide a letter from her GP confirming the impact of the noise on her and her son’s medical conditions, it would look into providing soundproofing to all ceilings. It explained that soundproofing works would be “extremely intrusive” and may involve her having to be decanted while works were being undertaken.
40. This service recognises that adding insulation and sound proofing to ceilings in the property constitutes large scale works. Therefore, on balance the landlord’s request for medical evidence to justify any decision to go ahead with the works was reasonable in these circumstances. It was also appropriate for it to manage the resident’s expectations about the likely disruption that such works would cause. On 12 May 2023 the resident sent the landlord a letter from her GP as per its request. In its stage 1 response provided 5 days later, the landlord told the resident it was in the process of finding a suitable system (to soundproof all ceilings) and it would contact her within 3 months with further details. This was in line with the 3-month timescale in its repairs and maintenance policy for larger ‘planned maintenance’ repairs.
41. In its stage 2 final response issued nearly 3 months later, the landlord reiterated that as the works were very intrusive it may need to decant the resident temporarily to accommodate the works. It said these arrangements may take some time to finalise and its officer would be in touch with her to discuss them. We consider that as it had been 3 months by this stage, the landlord should have specified in this response exactly when its officer would contact the resident to manage her expectations. The lack of any timescale provided at this stage, was unreasonable.
42. While we are unable investigate events following the date of the landlord’s final response, we expect the landlord to demonstrate it has adhered to any actions agreed during the complaints process. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 20 February 2025 that it recently decanted the resident from the property to enable the soundproofing works to commence. It explained it had appointed a contractor and was awaiting a start date, following the asbestos removal.
43. While this shows the landlord is providing the action promised, we are mindful of the 17-month timeframe since the date of its final response and that the work is not yet completed. This delay is unreasonable.
44. In summary, there was a delay by the landlord in exploring measures to reduce noise transference following the resident’s initial reports at the end of 2022. However, the landlord’s subsequent agreement to undertake extensive works to soundproof and insulate the property shows a commitment to resolve the issue for the resident. It also demonstrates the landlord considered the resident’s personal circumstances and needs while handling her request. However, the delay in delivering these works since its final response is significant and therefore unreasonable. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s request for soundproofing.
45. In the circumstances, the landlord will pay the resident £250 in compensation, for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings. This is in line with the level recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where failings by the landlord have adversely affected the resident.

Request for a replacement kitchen.

46. The resident told the landlord in October 2022 that the kitchen units smelt of damp then in April 2023, she requested a replacement kitchen due to its poor condition. She reiterated that the cupboards smelt damp and said that the kitchen cupboard doors were warping and there was peeling on the front of the units. She sent the landlord photos of the units.
47. The landlord’s standard is to replace kitchens every 20 years if they are found to be in a poor condition. In response to the resident’s request, the landlord undertook a condition survey of the kitchen which deemed the kitchen to be “functional” until renewal date. In its stage 1 complaint response, it explained the findings of its survey and that her kitchen was not due for renewal until the financial year 2026/27. It also explained that if a kitchen was deemed to be in a good condition when surveyed at renewal date, it may be left.
48. The stock survey confirms that the resident’s kitchen was installed in 2006 Therefore the landlord’s response was in line with its standard. The photos provided by the resident appear to show some minor damage however based on the survey, the landlord’s response that these issues did not justify a kitchen replacement, was reasonable. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that she could report any repair in relation to the kitchen units, to its repairs team and it would attend. This was reasonable.
49. As the landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s request and explained to her the reasons for not replacing her kitchen, it handled this matter in line with its policies.
50. The landlord recently told us it had since agreed to replacement kitchen and was in discussion with the resident about this.

Complaint handling

51. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process under which it was required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
52. In her 2 October 2022 email to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about issues that she said had not been resolved by the landlord.
53. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the definition of a complaint. This is echoed in the landlord’s complaints policy. Having reviewed the resident’s 2 October 2022 email, it is clear this met the definition of a complaint.
54. While it is evident the landlord investigated the issues raised in the resident’s 2 October 2022 email, it did not log a complaint or provide a stage 1 complaint response at this time. It only did so after the resident asked it to 6 months later during her call on 13 April 2023. Its failure to treat the resident’s 2 October 2022 communication as a complaint, is evidence of it failing to follow our Code or its own complaint’s process.
55. In response to the resident’s complaint raised on 13 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2023. This was 22 working days later. This exceeds the 10-working day timescale stated in its complaint procedure. The landlord asked the resident on 2 May 2023 if she agreed to extend the deadline until 15 May 2023 to allow the works to take place. However, she replied that she agreed to in relation to the heating aspect of the complaint but not in relation to her other complaints.
56. On balance the delay by the landlord in providing its complaint response is further evidence of it not following its complaints process while handling the related complaint.
57. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not address all the points raised by the resident in her complaint. It did not mention the resident’s complaints raised on 13 April 2023 about damp and mould or her request for compensation. Our Code makes clear that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. This is a further failing by the landlord.
58. These issues constitute maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s related complaint.

Determination

59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement heating system and the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing.
61. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

63. The Ombudsman orders the landlord within 4 weeks to:
    1. Provide an apology for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay additional compensation of £1,000 made up of:
       1. £600 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling the replacement heating system and damp and mould reports.
       2. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling her request for soundproofing.
       3. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling her related complaint.
    3. Review the failings identified in this investigation including how it supports households with vulnerabilities while dealing with repairs and damp and mould.
    4. Consider if its staff need further training on when it is appropriate to log a stage 1 complaint.
    5. Confirm to the resident that it will provide her with regular updates and expected timescales in relation to the soundproofing works until these are completed.
    6. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

64. The Ombudsman recommendations that if not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered during the complaints process (£2,212.50).