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

MHS Homes Ltd (202402453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402453

MHS Homes Ltd

13 February 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 a leak from a wet room and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She moved to the property in May 2018, through a mutual exchange. The property is a 2 bedroom flat located on the ground floor of a block of flats. The resident shares the flat with her grandson for whom she is a kinship carer. At the time of her complaint the resident shared her home with her partner and his 2 children. The relationship has since broken down and he no longer lives with her.
  2. The landlord has a record that the resident is dyslexic and has anxiety disorder. Through her contact with the Service, and her complaint to the landlord, the resident has said that she has both physical and mental health conditions. These include a bowel condition, osteoarthritis, and autism. The resident has said that she walks with a stick. She has also said that she has telephone anxiety.
  3. The resident’s property had been adapted with the installation of a wet room. No evidence has been presented as to the specific reason for these adaptations being made.
  4. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised works orders to repair the shower, toilet and wet room flooring on 13 April 2023. The repair to the shower and toilet were recorded as complete on the same day. The repair to the flooring was recorded as complete on 17 April 2023. The landlord raised a further works order for “flooring and plumbing works” on 17 April 2023. This order was completed on 29 January 2024. It raised a separate works order to repair the shower pump on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s repair records show this repair was completed on 27 December 2023.
  5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 27 December 2023 through a telephone call with a member of staff. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions in dealing with repairs and set out her ongoing concerns about the wet room. She said that the landlord had installed this in 2018, but it had not completed a post inspection of the works due to the COVID 19 pandemic. She said that she had experienced continuing issues with the bathroom and that it was now being replaced. She said that this had been going on for over 12 months and asked why this had not been dealt with sooner. Her complaint was logged and acknowledged on 5 January 2024.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2024. This said that her complaint was about its poor communication and that she had been left without a functioning wet room. It said that:
    1. The wet room had been installed in 2018, but due to social distancing a post inspection had not been carried out.
    2. A subsequent inspection found high levels of condensation within the property due to a lack of ventilation and a restriction to air circulation.
    3. A surveyor had visited the property and confirmed that it would replace the wet room to resolve the issue.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the delays to the inspection and repairs caused by the COVID 19 restrictions.
    5. It noted that there were outstanding actions following its surveyor’s visit on 21 December 2023. It set out the details of the works. These included removing and reinstalling the shower pump and to replace the existing toilet. It said that these were to be completed by 21 February 2024.
  7. The landlord’s contractor confirmed completion of the works to the wet room on 5 February 2024. It was noted that the resident had requested a deeper sink. This was not installed as it had not been specified as part of the aids and adaptations. The landlord raised an order for an inspection at the property on 9 April 2024. This was in response to reports from the resident that the wall between the bathroom and the bedroom was damp.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord and this Service on 15 April 2024 to ask that her complaint be escalated. In this she said that she was still experiencing problems with the wet room and that this was affecting her health as she was unable to use it. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 24 April 2024 noting that it was about failed repairs and a failure in its tenancy support.
  9. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 24 April 2024. It recorded that she had been unable to use the shower since 31 March 2024. It found that:
    1. There was water coming through the flooring in the hallway and bedroom.
    2. The bedroom wall and the skirting board that backed onto the bathroom were saturated.
    3. The new toilet had been fitted without a lid.
    4. The shower pump was cracked, hanging off the wall and not working.
  10. On 2 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord seeking an update about the repairs. She said that the situation was getting worse. She expressed her distress at the situation and the impact that this was having on her family. The landlord raised orders between 8 and 13 May 2024 for repairs to the property. This included an emergency order on the 9 May 2024 to find the source of a leak causing water to come up through the laminate flooring in the property.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It noted that the issues raised by the resident in her original complaint were still to be resolved. It said that it had spoken with the resident about her complaint and that she was due to be moved into a hotel for two weeks. This was to allow works to her home to be completed. It further noted that the resident was hoping to complete a mutual exchange which had been held up due to the outstanding repairs. In its response it said:
    1. The pump to the shower had been replaced.
    2. Its contractor had attended to lift the flooring and expose the walls that were affected by water. This was to allow these areas to dry out before they were reinstated.
    3. It had issued several separate orders to its contractor for works to be done. It had also used multiple contractors. This had caused uncertainty in keeping track of the works that had been completed.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised that she had needed to raise a complaint to ensure that the works were completed. Its contractor was due to return that week to confirm that the areas had dried out before completing the works.
    5. It set out the works that remained outstanding. These were:
      1. Relaying the wet room floor.
      2. Reinstating the walls affected by the water from the shower room.
    6. It offered her £300 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failure.

Events after the complaints procedure

  1. The landlord has confirmed that the resident was temporarily moved to a hotel between 17 May 2024 and 11 July 2024. Its records show that the resident then went to stay at her mother’s home for a period, returning to her property on or around 5 September 2024.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2024 to accept the offered compensation. In this she asked if this was to cover the electricity cost for running a dehumidifier at the property. Further she asked about compensation for her personal items that had been damaged by the leak. She said that her television had blown up due to water in the electrics and other items were affected by green mould. She also said that her flooring had been damaged by the water. The resident was told to contact the landlord’s claims team about the damage to her personal possessions.
  3. The landlord has shared significant internal communications following the completion of its stage 2 complaints response. These relate to the progress of the repairs to the resident’s home, compensation for the use of a dehumidifier in the property and damage to the resident’s possessions.
  4. On 3 June 2024 the contractor advised that the floor within the property remained wet despite the placement of dehumidifiers within the flat. The landlord raised an order to check the drainage to the property to trace the source of the ongoing leak. On 13 June 2024 the landlord’s contractors found a leak from the toilet. The landlord carried out repairs to remedy the leak. It agreed further works with the resident on 24 July 2024 to redecorate areas of the property affected by the leak. It also agreed to carry out a deep clean on completion of all the repairs.
  5. The resident contacted the Service on 13 January 2025. She said that she was still experiencing problems with the wet room and was unable to use the shower as the pump had stopped working. She said that she had several repairs outstanding to her home. The landlord said that it carried out an inspection on 10 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained to the Service that the length of time taken to resolve the repairs to her property had a negative impact on her and her family in terms of their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, affects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has said that the wet room was installed in October 2019 and not 2018 as set out in the resident’s complaint and its subsequent response. The landlord accepted that it had not completed its final inspection due to the restrictions put in place through the COVID 19 pandemic. The resident’s complaint, while focused on the issues that arose from December 2023 onwards, shows that she had been experiencing issues with the wet room from its installation. For this investigation, the Service has focused on her complaint in December 2023 and the 12 month period prior to this.

The landlord’s handling of a leak from the wet room and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of wastewater, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy provides guidance on the responsibility for repairs within a resident’s property. It defines a responsive repair as “day to day maintenance work carried out in response to a request from a customer”. It delivers this service using a combination of directly employed workmen and external contractors. The policy does not provide any timescales for dealing with repairs. These are however published on the landlord’s website. A maximum timeframe of 20 working days is set for a standard repair.
  4. The resident first reported repairs to the wet room in April 2023. She reported a repair to the shower pump on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 21 December 2023. It then raised a further works order on 10 January 2024. While the details of this order are unclear from the landlord’s repair records, its complaint response set out the works outstanding. These included the removal and reinstallation of the shower pump and the replacement of the toilet. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that it had completed the repairs on 5 February 2024, 32 working days after these were first reported.
  5. Due to these repairs, it is unclear if the resident was able to fully use the wet room during this time. The Service has noted that the toilet was a specialist item, which led to a delay in completing the repairs. It would however have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that other parts of the repairs were given priority. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord. It is not clear if the landlord completed a post inspection of these works. Had it done so in February 2024, this may have avoided the more extensive works it later needed to carry out.
  6. The landlord raised an order on 9 April 2024. This was for an inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord carried out the inspection on 24 April 2024, following further contact from the resident. It found that further works were needed to the wet room. It noted that the shower pump was not working effectively, and that water was not draining away. The landlord did not raise the orders to rectify these issues until 8 May 2024, 10 working days after its inspection. The resident was left chasing the landlord for updates. As a result, she asked for her complaint to be escalated. This could have been avoided by better communication with the resident and quicker action to address the necessary repairs. This was a failure by the landlord.
  7. The resident told the landlord, during the inspection of the property, that she had been unable to use the shower since 31 March 2024. The landlord also noted that there was water coming through the flooring. It did not however take steps to move the resident until 17 May 2024 when she and her family were placed into a hotel. The landlord’s response to the repairs to the wet room lacked urgency. There was also a failure to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and poor health. The landlord has a responsibility under the Equality Act 2010 to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristic. Its failure to ensure that the resident had access to appropriate bathing facilities indicates that it did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the act. The resident’s disabilities would have been known to the landlord given the adaptations to her property.
  8. The landlord’s repair records are lacking in detail. It has also not provided any records of its surveyor’s inspections of the property. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that it kept detailed records. These should capture the report it had received, when its contractor attended, what remedial works were carried out, whether any follow up action was required and why the order had been closed. Recording this information would ensure that the landlord had an accurate audit trail of the actions it had taken.
  9. The landlord acknowledged a failure in its record keeping. In its stage 2 reply to the resident it said that it had issued several separate orders to different contractors for works to be done. This had caused uncertainty in tracking that works had been completed. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping regarding repairs. In this it should consider the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM)
  10. The landlord moved the resident to a hotel for an initial period of 2 weeks. This was then extended, as the works to her property remained ongoing. The resident spent a total of 7 weeks in a hotel. The resident has said that this was a significant challenge to her, both in managing her health conditions and caring for her grandson. She has said that she was unable to use her medical equipment in the hotel and that it only provided a bath for bathing. The hotel was some miles from her home and her grandson’s nursery. Furthermore, she has said that she had a pet bird that she was not able to take to the hotel with her, so she was regularly returning to her home to care for it.
  11. The landlord has not provided evidence that it had a standalone policy for temporary decants. Its lettings policy refers to temporary decants only where these are carried out as a managed move to another property. In using hotel accommodation to decant the resident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that the temporary accommodation provided met the resident’s needs. That it did not do so was a failure.
  12. The landlord did book the hotel to include breakfast and an evening meal. Further, there is detail contained within the landlord’s records that it provided funds to the resident through the period of her decant to cover additional costs incurred. The detail and amount of these funds is not recorded. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have agreed in advance with the resident any additional costs it would cover. This would have mitigated any financial concerns she may have had and minimised the stress caused to her. It is unknown if the reimbursement of costs is covered within the landlord’s decant policy. It is noted that the landlord has committed to a review of its decant policy. It has been ordered that it consider the reimbursement of costs to its residents as part of that review.
  13. The landlord met the resident on 28 June 2024 and took photographs of the items damaged by the leak. These included her bed, sofa, television, drawers, and wardrobes. These were then referred to the landlord’s claims team on 2 July 2024. Its officer appropriately supported the resident in making the claim and in arranging for damaged items to be disposed of. It is understood that this claim was settled by the landlord in October 2024 with an offer of £1500.
  14. The landlord said that the resident vacated the hotel on 2 July 2024 following the breakdown of her relationship. At that time, she went to stay at her mother’s home as the repairs to her property remained ongoing. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident moved permanently back into her property. The landlord met with the resident again on 24 July 2024. Further works to the property were agreed with the resident. These were to clear and redecorate both bedrooms and the hallway. It said that it would then carry out a deep clean of the property.
  15. The resident had returned to the property when the landlord visited on 5 September 2024. This was a further 8 weeks since leaving the hotel. At this time, it was noted that the decorating works agreed on 24 July 2024 remained ongoing. This was 6 weeks after these had been agreed. There is no evidence as to why these had not been completed sooner. The resident told the landlord that while these had caused some disruption, she was happy to stay in her home.
  16. There were significant delays in the landlord completing the works to the resident’s property. The works carried out by the landlord in April, December and February failed in repairing the wet room. The landlord’s inspection in April 2024 found further repairs needed to both the shower pump and the toilet.
  17. The property was affected by an ongoing leak for several weeks. The source of the leak was traced to the toilet in June 2024. The water had spread under the laminate flooring in the property and caused extensive damage to the walls and doors. This also caused damage to the resident’s personal possessions. The landlord agreed to redecorate the bedrooms and hallway affected by the leak. Overall, the repairs to the resident’s property had been ongoing from April 2023. This caused significant disruption to the resident. She was unable to use the wet room and later to occupy her home. This was a significant failing by the landlord which amounts to severe maladministration.
  18. The landlord appropriately agreed to meet the cost of electricity for running the dehumidifier used to dry out the property. It agreed in June to make a payment of £157.50 based on a daily cost of £4.50 for running the dehumidifier for a period of 35 days. The landlord agreed a further sum of £314 in September 2024. This was based on the resident’s electricity bill for the time that she was away from her home. This was reasonable in the circumstances, although it is unclear why this had not been agreed in the first instance. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident of the potential costs when it installed the dehumidifier and that it would consider reimbursing her for this. This would have provided reassurance to her about the additional financial burden.
  19. There were significant failures and maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. Through her contact with the Service the resident has said that repairs to her property remain ongoing. This has not been disputed by the landlord and represents a further failure by the landlord. The landlord should have prioritised the repairs to the resident’s home to avoid further disruption to her and her family. As outlined above, it should have had regard for the resident’s vulnerability and noted poor health and been alert to the impact of the delays. An order has been made for the landlord to review its position.
  20. It is noted that the landlord carried out its own review of the resident’s complaint and highlighted some learning points. This recorded the length of time the resident was away from her home and the extended nature of the repairs. It noted that there had been confusion between departments about what had been done and when the property was ready for the resident to return. Furthermore, it recognised that it did not have an accurate record of the resident’s needs. It is positive that the landlord carried out such a review and has recorded the learning from this. An order has been made for the landlord to share the outcome of the associated policy reviews this highlighted.
  21. This was an opportunity for the landlord to have reviewed its position on compensation paid to the resident, but it did not do so. The resident was offered £300 compensation in conclusion of its stage 2 complaint for the upset and inconvenience caused to her. Given the level of disruption identified and the length of time the resident was unable to occupy her home, this offer was insufficient.
  22. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s own compensation guidance and its own guidance on remedies in making an order for an additional amount of compensation. This recognises both the loss of amenity to the resident and the level of inconvenience and disruption caused to her.
  23. In calculating the compensation award the Service has considered the loss of amenity to the resident because of the ongoing repairs to the wet room. The period used for the calculation is from the repairs raised in December 2023 to the resident’s return to her property in September 2024. We have taken into consideration that the resident was provided with hotel accommodation for 2 months between May and July 2024. We have considered her loss of amenity for a period of 7 months. Based on her average monthly rent, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £1007.37 compensation.
  24. This figure has been calculated as 25% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
  25. A further award of £700 has been made in respect of the inconvenience caused to the resident. This recognises the significant disruption caused to her and her family. This is in regard to the extended period she was away from her home and that there were ongoing repairs after her return.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom of the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology, acknowledging the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s Guidance on Remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2478.87 compensation calculated as follows:
      1. £1007.37 for the loss of amenity caused by the continued works to the wet room and other areas of the property.
      2. £700 in recognition of the impact on the resident for the extended period that she was unable to live in her home.
      3. £471.50 for the cost of running the dehumidifier.
      4. £300 awarded as an outcome to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
    3. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £771.50 awarded through its own complaint handling, it may deduct this from the total amount payable to the resident.
    4. Undertake a full inspection of the resident’s property to ensure that all repairs have now been completed. It should produce a schedule of any outstanding repairs and include timescales for the completion of these. Such a schedule should be shared with the resident and this Service. If no works are outstanding the landlord should provide its inspection report as evidence of compliance with this order.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Undertake a full review of its handling of the repairs in this case. It should identify where and why delays occurred. It should also consider how these could have been better managed to ensure completion within a more reasonable timeframe, highlighting any changes required to its internal processes to ensure that better outcomes are achieved in the future. As part of this review, it should also consider how it responds to vulnerable residents.
    2. The landlord should share with the Service the outcomes of its policy reviews. These were identified as part of its internal review of the resident’s complaint. It was to review both its individual needs policy and its decant policy. Within its decant policy review, the landlord should ensure it considers the reimbursement to residents of reasonable costs while they are decanted. It should also note how it will record these within its system to ensure that it keeps a clear record.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping regarding repairs. In this it should consider the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM)