Golding Homes Limited (202410615)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410615

Golding Homes Limited

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her shower.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 5 September 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident lives with her daughter. At the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord recorded that the household has vulnerabilities, it noted that the resident uses a shower seat.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord recorded that the shower tray in the resident’s bathroom was damaged, the plughole was blocked, and the shower was flooding the bathroom. The landlord attended to unblock the shower on this date. There is no evidence of further problems with the bathroom until 11 July 2023. The landlord recorded attendance on this date to address the shower tray/door leaking. It re-applied silicone around the pillar and base of the shower.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 27 October 2023. She said:
1. she had contacted the landlord over 4 weeks ago, operatives had attended on at least 3 occasions and the shower was still leaking onto the bathroom floor.
2. on one occasion the landlord’s operative was late and, as a result, the resident had to pay for her child to stay in after school club.
3. on another occasion, she waited home for an operative and no-one attended. When she telephoned the landlord about this, the telephone call handler was rude to her.
4. The resident wanted:
  1. an apology for the call handler’s rudeness on the telephone.
  2. for the landlord to repair the shower so it no longer leaked.
  3. an operative to attend at an agreed appointment time.
  4. compensation for damage to her cupboards and the cost of the afterschool club.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2023. It said:
1. the operative was late to an appointment because of an emergency elsewhere which pushed back all repairs for that day.
2. suppliers were sourcing a required part which would take a further 10 working days to arrive. Once this had arrived, it would contact the resident to schedule a date and complete works. The landlord would update the resident by 17 November 2023 and prioritise the repair due to the poor service.
3. it apologised about the way the resident was spoken to by a member of the landlord’s team. It said it would address this in line with its internal policy.
4. it apologised that the repairs had been outstanding for some time. It said it was poor service that it had not updated her.
5. as a result of the complaint, it had changed its approach to repairs. This included implementing additional checks with the planning team to ensure it updated customers about delays or cancellations earlier in the day. It said it would share feedback from the complaint with relevant managers.
6. it offered the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
7. if the resident had any support needs that required reasonable adjustments, then she should let the landlord know.
On the 11 January 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. over the previous months, for various reasons, the landlord’s operatives had not attended agreed appointments. The planning department had acted poorly.
  1. the most recent appointment did not go ahead because the contractor could not get a necessary part from the shop, as it was closed.
  2. no-one turned up to repair her kitchen cupboard on the agreed appointment date and the planning team did not contact her.
2. she was going to approach the Ombudsman because she had been trying to get her shower fixed since February 2023.
3. she had contacted the landlord twice on 10 January 2024 requesting a call back but did not receive one.
4. she wanted to be able to shower without it leaking and causing water damage to her cabinets.
5. she had refused extra shifts at work to stay home for appointments, but nothing gets fixed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2024. It:
1. apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the landlord’s poor service.
2. said the reason it could not complete the repair in November 2023 was because the landlord had asked the contractor to buy an incorrect component for the shower. It had resolved this issue and the shower door would be replaced on 5 March 2024.
3. said it was going to launch a full end-to-end review of its repairs service with the aim of improving communication with customers. It said this would include introducing new software to better monitor the work of subcontractors.
4. increased the compensation offered to £100 for distress and inconvenience.
Following the resident’s approach to this Service, the repairs to the bathroom remained ongoing, with various appointments between February 2024 and January 2025. In January 2025, the landlord temporarily rehoused the resident with her daughter to a hotel to enable the landlord to install a wetroom. The landlord made the resident a final offer of £2250 compensation in February 2025, which was accepted and paid.
In communication with this service, the resident stated that she was satisfied with the new bathroom and, in particular, the effectiveness of a member of the landlord’s staff who became involved at the end of 2024. She said she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate to ensure the landlord demonstrated it had learned from her case to prevent something similar happening to another resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of her personal data. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord which exhausted its internal complaints procedure on 28 February 2024. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident does pursue a complaint on this issue, she may find it helpful to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for guidance.
Within the complaint, the resident has raised a request for compensation for damage to personal belongings and loss of income. The Ombudsman does not assess negligence, liability or damages in the same way as an insurance claim or court do. In this case we have determined that issues involving damage to personal items is better suited and fairer to be consider by an insurance claim or court. The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel that the landlord is liable for the damage to her belongings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her shower

The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants, in place between 2022 and 2025, said that it prioritised repairs based on several factors, including any vulnerabilities in the household. The priority categories were:
1. emergency – any problem causing immediate damage to the home or a health and safety issue. The landlord would make safe the issue within 24 hours, with further repairs taking place thereafter.
2. urgent – any issue that would cause damage to the home or would affect the resident’s wellbeing if left for a prolonged period. Repairs would be completed within 5 days.
3. routine – any other day-to-day repair to the home would be completed within 28 days.
The repairs guide confirmed that the landlord aimed to complete all repairs within 28 days. The landlord said it would always contact the resident if it could not complete repairs, to let them know when it would complete them.
The landlord’s records show that the first appointment to repair the shower was on 8 February 2023. This service is unable to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident, because there is no evidence of the service request itself, confirming the date it was raised or the resident’s position. This reflects poor record keeping by the landlord.
During the appointment, the landlord attended the property and unblocked the shower drain. There is no evidence that the landlord considered further repairs to the shower tray beyond unblocking the drain, even though the repair notes indicate that the shower tray was damaged. This may have been a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident sooner.
However, the landlord’s records show that the issue was not raised again until 4 months later, in June 2023, when the landlord attended the property a second time to address the shower tray leaking. It is unclear if this was a new leak, or if the leak had been ongoing since February 2023. The landlord can only be expected to respond to issues it has been made aware of. In the absence of further contact from the resident between February and June 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to have assumed that the intervention in February 2023 successfully addressed the issue.
The landlord has not provided this Service with details of the service request that necessitated the 11 June 2023 appointment. Accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, landlords also have an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
On 11 June 2023, the landlord re-applied sealant around the pillar of the shower and the along the base to address leaking from the shower tray/door. This was a reasonable attempt to put things right.
On 8 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the shower was still leaking despite the sealant repairs and the unblocked pipes. The landlord categorised the repair as routine and made an appointment for 13 July 2023, which was in line with the timescales outlined in the repairs guide.
On 13 July 2023, the landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned the landlord to check that its operative was still due to attend. The landlord’s operative was running late and, due to the resident’s childcare commitments later in the day, the appointment could not go ahead. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) says it is best practice for landlords to inform residents of appointments so that access can be provided. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have a system in place which ensured the resident was kept informed of any delays. There is no evidence that the appointment was re-scheduled. This was not in line with the information provided within the repairs guide for tenants.
On 27 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said that the leak had been ongoing for over 4 weeks, despite repair appointments to fix it. She said the flooding had damaged her bathroom cabinets. She said the landlord’s contractors were either late or did not attend scheduled appointments, which had led to extra costs to cover childcare. She said when she telephoned the landlord about one of the appointments, the telephone call handler was rude to her. She wanted an apology and compensation from the landlord.
On 31 October 2023 the resident re-iterated her dissatisfaction with the landlord during a telephone call. The landlord raised a repair on this date for a new shower door. The landlord was on notice from 8 July 2023 that the repair to the leaking shower was unsuccessful. Though there is evidence of at least 1 attempt to complete repairs after this date, that it took until 31 October 2023 for the repair to be progressed was a failing when assessed against the landlord’s repairs guide. If the landlord was unable to complete the repair within 28 days, it would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed this with the resident alongside a new repair date.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for its poor customer service and that the resident had to chase outstanding repairs. It offered the resident £50 for her time and trouble. It provided explanations for the late appointment and the delayed repair completion. Although it is positive that the landlord explained the reasons for the delays, it would have been fairer and likely have caused the resident less distress if it had been transparent with her when it knew the delays were unavoidable.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the required shower part would arrive within 10 working days, after which the landlord would schedule a convenient date with the resident and ensure all work was completed. In recognition of the poor service the resident had received, the landlord said it would prioritise the repair and update her by 17 November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on the 17 November 2023, that it scheduled a new appointment having procured a new shower part, or that the repair was prioritised. This was a failing by the landlord.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had changed its approach to ensure it informed residents of late or cancelled appointments earlier in the day to prevent customers waiting. However, the next appointment within the landlord’s records relating to the shower repair, scheduled on 29 December 2023, did not go ahead. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on the appointment date to advise that no-one had attended. The telephone call handler told her that this was because the correct component could not be sourced. That the resident had to chase the landlord to confirm the cancellation demonstrates that the landlord had not successfully implemented its new approach or learned from outcomes.
On 11 January 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had been trying to get her shower fixed since February 2023. She said she wanted to be able to shower without it leaking and damaging her bathroom cabinets. She said that the landlord did not call her back when she requested contact. She had refused extra shifts at work to stay in for appointments and no-one would attend.
On 15 January 2024 a service request was logged regarding a faulty electrical shower. It is not clear whether this request related to the ongoing shower leak or if it was a separate issue. There is no evidence the landlord attended the property to assess or address this repair. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
On 31 January 2024, 6 February 2024, 12 February 2024 and 22 February 2024 scheduled appointments did not go ahead because the landlord’s operative either did not attend or did not have the equipment or time to complete the repair. There is evidence of some communication between the landlord and the resident during this period, but the records show that it was primarily the resident telephoning the landlord for updates, rather than the landlord informing her of cancellations in advance. This was a failing when assessed against the landlord’s repairs guide for tenants and it reflects poor knowledge and information management by the landlord.
The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 28 February 2024. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and frustration it had caused the resident and the time taken for repairs. It said it had initially provided the contractor with incorrect information regarding the shower component, which caused the delay. It said that it would replace the shower door on 5 March 2024 and offered the resident £100 for her time and trouble, in place of the offer of £50 made at stage 1.
The landlord made efforts to put things right by upholding the complaint, offering compensation and providing a new repair date. However, it did not complete repairs on 5 March 2024. On receipt of the stage 2 complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor, who confirmed they were still waiting for a shower part. The failure to complete the repair by the date set in the stage 2 response was a failing by the landlord. Additionally, the fact the resident had to contact the contractor directly to confirm that the appointment would not be going ahead was not reasonable and reflects a lack of trust between the resident and the landlord.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would be launching an end-to-end review of its repairs service to improve standards. It also said it was introducing new software to better monitor the work of its contractors. This was an attempt by the landlord to learn from outcomes, which was appropriate.
Throughout the complaint, the resident refers to the financial impact of the leak. She reports income lost and money spent to cover childcare due to repeat or missed appointments. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it does not pay compensation as reimbursement for loss of earnings. Whilst the landlord was entitled to take this position, it would have been reasonable for it to have discussed this with the resident to confirm its position, with reference to its compensation policy.
The resident also repeatedly raised the issue of damage to her bathroom cabinets due to the leak. Although the landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it does not pay compensation for damage to goods, fixtures or fittings, it does say it will consider compensation if its lack of action worsened a situation. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered awarding compensation for the damaged cabinets, given that it held responsibility for repairing the leak. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord offered to support the resident to make a claim through her insurance, which was not appropriate.
The landlord had recorded that the resident has vulnerabilities which specifically relate to her use of the shower. The resident had also told the landlord that she had 2 slipped discs in her back and poor mobility. Although the landlord asked the resident if she had any support needs in its stage 1 complaint response, there is no evidence it otherwise considered the vulnerability of the household either in its communication with the resident, or in its prioritising of the repairs. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with the information set out in the tenant’s repairs guide.

Post internal complaints procedure

Further delays and unsuccessful appointments occurred in March 2024. In April 2024, the resident asked the landlord not to communicate with her temporarily due to a bereavement, which likely accounts for a delay in progress in this month. In June 2024 the landlord decided it would be a more cost-effective solution to convert the bathroom to a wetroom, which the resident was happy with. A specific set of works was agreed upon and communicated to the resident to enable this to happen, which was appropriate.
In August 2024 some works were attempted to progress the installation of a wetroom, but these were unsuccessful. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why the wetroom was not completed at this time. Between 13 January 2025 and 17 January 2025, the landlord temporarily rehoused the resident to a hotel and completed repairs to the bathroom. The resident reports she is satisfied with the bathroom, and no works are outstanding.
In March 2025, the landlord contacted the resident. It apologised for her experience of the repairs to her bathroom and its poor communication throughout. It acknowledged and apologised for damage to her cabinets, rudeness of its employees and inconvenience during the repairs. It made a final offer of compensation, which the resident accepted. The landlord provided details of the breakdown, which totalled £2350 (although it told this service the total was £2250). The breakdown was as follows:
1. time and trouble – £100
2. poor communication – £250
3. failure to consider impact – £200
4. inconvenience chasing – £200
5. reduced toilet facilities during repair work – £50
6. appointment failure inconvenience – £100
7. poor complaint handling – £100
8. discretional offer to cover damaged cabinet – £250
9. impact caused by delays to resolve repairs – £500
10. avoidable delays and distress and inconvenience – £300
11. incorrectly closing GDPR request in January 2024 – £150
12. delays in following up GDPR concerns – £150
In March 2025, the landlord informed this Service of developments since the complaint. It said:
1. it had a new dedicated complaints team.
2. in December 2024, the complaints team delivered a workshop to 150 colleagues which focussed on keeping customers informed, the importance of KIM and clear record keeping.
3. it now had a senior leadership team who encourage empowerment and accountability.
4. the repairs and maintenance service had seen a change in leadership, additional resource, training, competency tests and customer experience awareness.
5. it uses data to identify areas for improvement.
6. the complaints team deliver weekly meetings where crucial complaint information is shared and actioned to the wider service.

Conclusion

Whilst the landlord has paid additional sums of compensation to the resident and outlined its learning from the failures, these cannot be considered as reasonable redress under paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme. This is because a significant proportion of that compensation was offered after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this service.
Overall, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her shower. This is because:
1. it took over 18 months for the landlord to complete repairs to the leaking shower.
2. the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for information. On several occasions, the landlord’s operatives would either not attend or would turn up to scheduled repair appointments late.
3. there is no evidence that the landlord considered the household’s vulnerability in its response to the leak.
4. the landlord’s record keeping and communication with the resident was poor at the time of the complaint.
Of the total compensation offered, £400 was for matters not considered as part of this assessment. However, the remaining amount of £1950 compensation already paid by the landlord to the resident for its failure in respect of the leak is fair and reasonable to reflect the maladministration and resulting distress and inconvenience. Therefore, no further compensation payment is necessary. However, the landlord must share the outcome of its end-to-end review agreed in the stage 2 complaint response with the resident and this Service to show it has learned from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure under its complaints policy. It aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is inline with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 27 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2023 and responded on 15 November 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 January 2024. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 February 2024, 34 working days later. This was outside the timescale set out in its complaints policy. While the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint was not excessive, the landlord did not apologise or offer any form of redress for this in its complaint response. This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles as it made no effort to put things right or learn from the outcome of its delayed response.
In March 2025, the landlord paid the resident £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling. It also confirmed to this Service that it had a new complaints team with more resource and a commitment to KIM. These actions were appropriate. As above, this service cannot find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling because the offer of compensation and associated learning happened after the resident approached the Ombudsman. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from her shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. share the learnings identified in the end-to-end review of its repairs service set out in its stage 2 complaint response. It must share these learnings with the resident and this Service.
3. Pay the resident the £2050 it offered outside of the internal complaints procedure, unless this has already been paid.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The resident told this Service that she has had issues with her roof since the complaint. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any current repair issues she may have, inspect them accordingly and agree an action plan if required.