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

MHS Homes Ltd (202220211)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220211

MHS Homes Ltd

4 April 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 a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, a 1-bedroom bungalow, owned by the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident has limited mobility and is partially sighted.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 to report a knocking noise. On 4 October she told the landlord that the carpet in her living room was wet. The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 October but was unable to move the resident’s sofa to carry out work. That day the resident raised a complaint, as she was unhappy she had been left with a wet carpet.
  3. The landlord’s contractor reattended on 21 October 2022 to move the sofa and isolate the leak, which was found to be under the floorboards. In its stage 1 response of 6 December, the landlord said that the repair was resolved within its policy timescale. However, it acknowledged there were delays with information being passed between departments and offered £50 compensation. It asked the resident to provide a copy of her water bill so it could consider reimbursement.
  4. On 29 December 2022 the landlord offered the resident further compensation of £53.56 for additional electricity used for dehumidifiers and £10 for water.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 January 2023. It sent its stage 2 response on 21 February. It offered £74.54 to cover her full water bills from 15 September to 15 November. This brought its total offer to £178.10.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and on 3 November 2023 asked us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out what it is responsible for repairing, which includes leaking pipes. Its website says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and offer an appointment for non-urgent repairs that is suitable for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 to report a banging noise. She sent a recording of the noise to the landlord, but it found it difficult to hear anything in this recording. It asked her where the noise was coming from, but she was unsure. There is no evidence that any action was taken by the landlord at this point. After the repair was resolved, the resident has told us that the noise was the sound of water dripping out of a pipe. However, as she was unsure what the noise was at the time, or where it was coming from, it is not clear what action the landlord could have taken.
  3. On 4 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again to say that the carpet in her living room was wet near the radiator. As the landlord thought the most likely source of the leak was the radiator it asked her to contact its gas contractor. A contractor attended on 19 October 2022. On this visit the contractor was unable to move the resident’s sofa to isolate the radiator. They did isolate the heating in an attempt to minimise the leaking. They had to arrange to visit with an additional person, which was reasonable.
  4. On 19 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint saying that the contractor had not sealed off the leak so she had been left with a wet carpet. On 21 October the landlord’s contractor returned and found that isolating the radiator in the living room did not stop the leak, as the water meter was still spinning continuously. It was found that there was a leak coming from the water mains pipe below the floorboard and an urgent repair was completed on 24 October.
  5. The landlord’s records do not show what, if any, action it took between 4 and 19 October 2022. It later classified the repair as urgent, but it does not appear that it treated it as urgent when it was first reported on 4 October. This led to it taking almost 3 weeks to repair the leak, which exceeded its urgent repair timescale of 5 working days. This represented an unreasonable delay, and no evidence has been provided that the landlord kept the resident updated, which was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. It said that until she had discovered the wet carpet a plumber would not necessarily have been able to locate the issue from listening to the banging. It said it had carried out the repair within its timescales, which, as explained above, was not correct. However, it acknowledged delays with some information being passed between departments and offered £50 compensation to recognise this. This compensation amount was not proportionate considering its failings.
  7. The resident responded to the landlord the same day saying she was stuck with large water and electricity bills. She also mentioned an issue with slugs due to the water leak. However, we have seen no evidence that she had previously mentioned the slugs when reporting the leak or raising her original complaint. The landlord responded to say it had raised a job for the surrounding walls to be treated for mould growth. The resident said that the carpet was also damaged and she had not been offered compensation for this.
  8. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 14 December 2022 that it had visited the property and found that there were no longer slugs present. It said that the area, including the carpet had dried out well and it would arrange a mould treatment. The action taken by the landlord was appropriate to ensure the damage caused by the leak was resolved.
  9. On 29 December 2022 the landlord offered the resident additional compensation of £53.56 for the additional electricity used by the dehumidifier. It also offered £10 towards her water bill. It said it could consider more if she provided a copy of her water bill, which was reasonable.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. It said that the water bills provided by the resident did not show the actual volume of water used each month. So, it was not able to calculate the additional volume discharged by the leak. It offered to compensate her £74.54 to cover all water used between 15 September and 15 November 2022. The resident had first reported the knocking sound on 8 September and the leak was isolated and repaired on 24 October, around 6 weeks later.
  11. The resident told this Service the leak was ongoing for 4 or 5 months, however there is no evidence the landlord was aware of the leak for this long. Based on the evidence available the landlord’s offer relating to her water bill was reasonable, as it likely covered the additional amount she had to pay.
  12. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. It took too long to carry out work to isolate and repair the leak, leaving the resident with a wet carpet and an ongoing leak for 3 weeks. This was not in line with its repairs policy. It did not keep her updated during this time, exacerbating the distress caused to her.
  13. The landlord did offer reasonable compensation to cover the resident’s additional electricity and water use during its internal complaints process. However, it did not fully recognise or apologise for the delay in repairing the leak.
  14. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150. This amount has been awarded with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repair. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £378.10.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will send its response within 20 working days of the escalation request. At both stages it can extend this by 10 working days, however it will notify the resident if it needs an extension.
  3. The resident raised the complaint on 19 October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. It sent its stage 1 response on 6 December, 34 working days after the acknowledgement. No evidence has been provided that it kept the resident updated with a reason for the delay. This response was outside the policy timescale and represented an unreasonable delay.
  4. On 10 January 2023 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. On 18 January the landlord told the resident it would escalate the complaint, but did not do so until 1 February, which was a further unreasonable delay. It sent its stage 2 response on 21 February, which was within its policy timescale based on the date it escalated the complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It took too long to respond at stage 1, and too long to escalate the complaint. It also failed to acknowledge these delays in its complaint responses, which would have been appropriate for it to do.
  6. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak
    2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. pay the resident total compensation of £428.10, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings relating to the leak
      2. £128.10 for the additional water and electricity used by the resident
      3. £100 for its complaint handling failures
    2. apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report