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

MHS Homes Ltd (202302619)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302619

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:
    1. Repairs to the bathroom roof and ceiling.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2019. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. Following an inspection of the property on 28 June 2022 the landlord identified that the roof above the bathroom required repairs. It would also need to replace the bathroom ceiling after the roof had been repaired.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about its roof repairs on 29 November 2022. She said her daughter had been injured by a fallen slate.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 December 2022. It told the resident it replaced several roof tiles in line with its major repair target dates. It could not repair the bathroom ceiling until it had repaired the roof. Its contractor would repair the bathroom ceiling the week commencing 9 December 2022.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 March 2023. She was unhappy with the quality of the repairs to the bathroom. She said the temporary fix was unsafe.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. It told the resident it had completed all repairs to her roof and bathroom ceiling. It said her home was weathertight.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 20 July 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and how it handled her complaint. She said it had not addressed the injury to her daughter. It also had not repaired the damage caused to the bathroom from the leak. She wanted it to redecorate her bathroom and to check whether there was any structural damage caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. The resident told us that the landlord’s contractor did not secure the bathroom ceiling sufficiently. She said debris fell and caused a head injury to her daughter. She also said it continues to have a negative effect on her daughter’s mental health. In November 2023 the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £2,000 to settle the issue of her daughter’s injury out of court. It paid her that amount on 13 December 2023.
  2. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s family’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages in the way a court will. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim where the evidence of independent medical experts may be examined. Our investigation will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident outside of her daughter’s injury. If the resident is unhappy with the settlement she reached with the landlord, she should seek legal advice.

Bathroom repairs

  1. Landlords are legally responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of a rented property in good repair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). This duty applies not only to the ongoing condition of the property but also during and after any repair work. Landlords should ensure they complete all repairs safely.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy does not include timescales for how long it should take to complete a repair. However, its internal repair job booking forms instruct its contractors of target dates for the completion of repairs.
  3. During a damp and mould inspection of the bathroom the landlord identified wet patches on the bathroom ceiling likely caused by a leak. It booked in a repair job with its roofing contractor on 1 July 2022. It classed it as a major repair and set a target date of 26 August 2022. It told the resident the contractor would contact her to book in a date.
  4. During its inspection the landlord identified the resident had made alterations to the rear of the property without its permission. It asked her to provide information from her builder about those alterations (which she later provided in September 2022). The evidence provided does not show that outstanding matter was preventing its roofing contractor from progressing with the booked in repair. 
  5. There is no evidence the contractor contacted the resident to arrange the roof repair. She telephoned the landlord to chase up the repair on 14 September 2022. It contacted its roofing contractor the same day. The roofing contractor said it would update the resident. It was not appropriate that the landlord had not previously chased up the status of that repair. There is also no evidence it checked with either its contractor or the resident whether an update had been provided. It did not show that it was effectively monitoring its contractor.
  6. The landlord booked in the bathroom ceiling repair with its asbestos contractor on 28 September 2022. It set a target date of 26 October 2022. The contractor removed the resident’s bathroom ceiling outside of the target date on 10 November 2022. It put up a temporary polythene sheet to prevent dust and debris. The landlord booked in the repair job to reinstate the bathroom ceiling the next day. The target date for that repair was 20 January 2023. In not completing the roof repairs before it removed the bathroom ceiling the landlord did not show it had considered the disruption the repairs would cause to the resident. Its disorganised approach to the repairs inconvenienced the resident more than it should have.
  7. The resident telephoned the landlord on 15 November 2022 and reported a leak in her bathroom. She was concerned water was entering the bathroom onto wires which were exposed following the removal of the ceiling. The landlord spoke to its roofing contractor the same day and it said it would contact the resident once it had spoken to its operative. Again, there is no record the contractor did that and the landlord did not check whether it had updated the resident. In not ensuring its roofing contractor followed up on its assurance the landlord did not show it was taking the resident’s safety concerns seriously.
  8. The landlord asked its asbestos contractor to secure the temporary sheet on 23 November 2023. It assured the landlord it would attend the next day. It did not attend. There is no evidence the landlord chased that appointment up to check it had secured the sheeting. In not doing so it did not show it was effectively monitoring the repair. 
  9. The resident telephoned the landlord on 29 November 2022 and reported that the temporary ceiling in her bathroom had fallen. It was appropriate that it arranged for its contractor to attend the next day to inspect the temporary sheeting. It told the landlord the sheeting was still up, but some parts had come away due to the loft insulation. It did not record that it resecured the sheeting. It would have been appropriate for it to have done that to reassure the resident.
  10. It is unclear on what date but some time in between 15 and 29 November 2022 the landlord’s roofing contractor repaired the roof above the bathroom. In its stage 1 response on 5 December 2022 the landlord told the resident it had completed the roof repairs in line with its target for major repairs. Given its contractor completed the repairs in November 2022 against a target of 26 August 2022 it is unclear why it told her that. It also said it could only complete the bathroom ceiling repairs once it had repaired the roof. It missed an opportunity to explain why it allowed the contractor to remove the ceiling before the roof repairs. The landlord’s approach at stage 1 did not show it had considered the inconvenience the resident had experienced during the repairs.   
  11. On 30 December 2022 and 2 January 2023 the resident told the landlord the leak and removal of temporary sheeting had caused cracks to the plaster in the bathroom walls. She wanted it to redecorate the bathroom. An internal e-mail from January 2023 shows the landlord asked its Repairs Team if it could “make good” the bathroom following the ceiling issue. There is no evidence the Repairs Team responded. That was not appropriate. It should have contacted the resident to either arrange a post repair inspection or set out its position on the redecoration.
  12. The landlord did not change its position at stage 2. If the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the damaged walls and request for redecoration to be new issues, it would have been reasonable for it to exclude them from its stage 2 investigation. This was because she had not raised these issues during stage 1. However, it should have made that clear to her.
  13. In its stage 2 response it addressed some new repair issues outside the resident’s complaint. It agreed to further repairs but told her that it had not considered them as part of the stage 2 complaint because she had raised them after its stage 1 response. Given it had addressed other issues raised after its stage 1 response even if it did not consider the cracks in the bathroom wall and redecoration part of the stage 2 complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to have set out its position about that. That would have allowed the resident to make a further complaint if she disagreed with its position. Instead, she was uncertain about whether it would redecorate her bathroom following the repairs.
  14. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident has chased up the redecoration of her bathroom. Internal e-mails show that spoke to its contractor about that in September 2023. However, there is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor has returned to redecorate the bathroom.
  15. It took the landlord almost 4 months to complete the repairs to the resident’s bathroom roof and ceiling. During that time, it did not show that it was effectively communicating with its roofing contractor. It did not chase up the status of the repair after the 26 August 2022 target was missed until prompted by the resident. That resulted in it starting the bathroom ceiling repairs prematurely. It also failed to monitor its asbestos contractor when it said it would return to secure the temporary sheeting. As it did not address any of these failings in its complaint responses there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom roof and ceiling.
  16. An order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the poor communication with its contractors and the impact it had in delaying the repairs. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where its fully responsible for a medium impact service failure it will pay up to £250 in compensation for distress and inconvenience. As this Service assesses the landlord and not its contractors, we would consider the landlord responsible for any failings of the contractors it employs. That amount also falls within the maladministration banding of this our remedies guidance. It reflects that the landlord’s failure negatively impacted the resident

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, landlords were expected to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. They should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaints. If the resident required an escalation, they should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In their acknowledgements and responses landlords should set out their understanding of a resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy was compliant with the Code.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the time allowed. At stage 1 it acknowledged her complaint the day it received it and responded in 5 working days. It acknowledged her stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and responded in 15 working days.
  3. In its stage 1 response it did not mention the resident’s concerns about the fallen debris. While those concerns were better handled outside its complaints process it missed an opportunity to explain that to her. It was appropriate that it identified that and gave her the e-mail address for its Claims Team in its stage 2 response. As it put things right at stage 2 and responded within timescales there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom roof and ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings in its handling of repairs to the bathroom roof and ceiling.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation in addition to any compensation already paid for the distress and inconvenience in relation to those failings.
  2. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should inspect the resident’s bathroom within 4 weeks and consider whether further repairs or redecoration is required.