Midland Heart Limited (202226163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226163

Midland Heart Limited

20 May 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:
1. Reports of repairs and silverfish.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 25 November 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, second-floor flat. The resident has a young child, which the landlord is aware of.
On 28 November 2022, the resident told the landlord there was no gas in the property and that she had found silverfish. The resident reported silverfish again on 13 December 2022, as well as other repair issues. She chased a response on 20 December 2022 and complained via webform on 5 January 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. When she viewed the property there were holes in the floor in the hallway, in the living room where gas lines were cut very sharp and in the first bedroom. She said a plug socket by the bathroom did not work and the surrounding wall was damaged, and that the television socket in the living room was broken with wires hanging from it. The landlord said it had completed the repairs when she collected the keys.
2. The kitchen had no space for a washing machine.
3. There were silverfish in the hallway.
4. The bathroom sink had been blocked for weeks.
5. She had phoned multiple times, but the landlord had not completed any repairs.
6. The landlord told her to monitor mould in the bathroom.
The resident complained via webform again on 26 January 2023. She made a formal complaint on 31 January 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had closed her complaint without responding.
2. Mould in the bathroom was travelling to the bedroom, there was a hole in the hallway floor that she could fit her hand in, 2 gas pipes were sticking out in the living room, the push plug in the bathroom sink was stuck, the boiler kept breaking down, a plug socket in the bedroom was broken and a switch on a plug socket in the hallway did not work.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 February 2023. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. The resident had reported issues on a number of occasions since signing the tenancy.
2. The resident had asked to escalate the complaint on 13 January 2023. It said it encouraged its service areas to try to resolve issues before escalating to formal investigation but noted that it did not contact the resident. It said it had learned from this and put in additional resource and checks so this did not happen again.
3. It asked for the resident’s availability for a surveyor inspection, following which it would raise the necessary repairs. It apologised that the resident did not feel a Saturday appointment was convenient.
4. The resident had experienced substantial delays in it carrying out repairs. It apologised for the poor experience and said it had provided feedback to learn from this and prevent this from happening again.
5. It would ensure there were no further delays to the repairs, following which it would assess the complaint in its entirety and award compensation.
On 23 February 2023, the landlord provided an updated complaint response, the key points were as follows:
1. It had completed almost all repairs and would assess the electric fan in the bathroom, repair the television socket and unblock the push plug in the bathroom sink on 1 March 2023.
2. It apologised for the level of service received and said it had provided feedback to relevant teams to learn from this.
3. It offered £316 compensation, comprising £50 for not escalating the complaint sooner, £96 for the delay in completing repairs and £170 for the inconvenience of the property not meeting the expected standard when the resident moved in.
On 24 February 2023, the resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer and said she would contact it after the repairs visit.
On 3 March 2023, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had not repaired the television socket.
2. The bathroom vinyl had lifted behind the sink and toilet, where insects were coming from.
3. The toilet flushed, but one of the flush buttons was broken.
4. There was a gap at the bottom of the front door, which meant heat could escape.
5. There were ‘huge cracks’ in the main bedroom.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 6 March 2023.
The resident chased a stage 2 response on 30 March 2023, 26 April 2023 and 5 June 2023. We informed the landlord on 3 July 2023 that the resident did not want to escalate her complaint.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord issued another updated complaint response, the key points were as follows:
1. It thanked the resident for her patience while it investigated the outstanding repairs.
2. The resident had agreed on 14 August 2023 that it could close the complaint and accepted £451 compensation, comprised as follows:
  1. £181 for the delays and inconvenience in completing the necessary repairs, calculated as £1 per day from when she reported damp on 31 January 2023 until 31 July 2023
  2. £170 for its poor communication
  3. £100 for its complaint handling and communication
On 16 August 2023, the resident requested a stage 2 response, which the landlord acknowledged on 17 August 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 September 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. It should have completed multiple repairs before the resident moved in. It apologised for the inconvenience of reporting repairs and taking until July 2023 to complete them, for which it had provided £451 compensation.
2. It should have escalated the complaint sooner, for which it apologised and offered a further £170 for poor complaints handling and the impact that this had.
3. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 October 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 21 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says this complaint has impacted the mental and physical health of her and her son. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered reports of repairs raised after 26 April 2023, which the landlord agreed to address as part of the residents ongoing complaint. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to more recent reports, she can raise them as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman to investigate as a separate complaint.
In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for time off work or loss of wages while repairs are carried out. Although such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused; for example, where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

Policies and procedures

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), prepared in consideration of the Housing Act 2004 (the Act), states a dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It does not provide a timeframe for non-emergency repairs but says it will usually provide a 2-hour timeslot between 8am and 7pm Monday to Friday, and between 9am and 12pm on a Saturday.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant must allow entry to the home to allow the landlord to carry out necessary works. Failure to allow access after notification would place the tenant in breach of their agreement, which could result in it taking legal action.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1 it will contact the resident within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, its ‘review’ stage, it will respond within 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of reports of repairs and silverfish

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, this Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has provided details of void works. It has also provided a void post work inspection report dated 9 November 2022. The purpose of the report, which the landlord noted as a pass, was to ensure the completion of all void repair works before the new tenant moved in.
The resident says she raised several issues before taking possession of the keys on 25 November 2022. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate these events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The first evidence of issues reported is on 28 November 2022, when the resident said there was no gas in the property and that she had found silverfish. The resident chased a response on 30 November 2022 and told the landlord that she had no electricity due to a debt on the meter. The landlord was not responsible for this issue, which the resident needed to resolve with the supplier.
The void post work inspection report noted the location of the gas and electricity meters, with the supplies to be tested upon occupation of the property. The landlord attended to turn on and test the gas on 1 December 2022, but the resident was not in.
When the landlord revisited, it could not test the gas due to a debt on the meter that meant no gas could flow into the property. The date of the visit is unclear, which indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord noted that the meter needed securing with a floor bracket due to ‘hanging’ from a 22mm pipe, which would be a risk if connected. It also noted that the resident did not need heaters due to not living in the property at the time, which shows it considered her heating needs.
However, the resident says she could not move into the property until after the landlord returned on 12 December 2022 to secure the gas meter and turn on the supply. It is unclear whether the need to secure the meter with a floor bracket delayed the landlord turning on the gas, as there is no evidence regarding when the resident resolved the issue with the debt on the meter. Therefore, it is not possible to establish whether the landlord caused this delay.
The resident said a surveyor advised her to put powder on the floor where silverfish had come out of the walls. Although the landlord acknowledged that a surveyor had visited to assess this issue, it has not provided any details of the visit, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
On 13 December 2022, the resident expressed concern about silverfish coming out of the flooring as well as the walls. She reported holes in the floor throughout property, a broken switch and a socket hanging completely off a wall, 2 holes with sharp gas pipes coming out and that there was nowhere to install a washing machine. She also pointed out that she had a 4-year-old child. The landlord noted these repair issues on 20 December 2022 but took no further action due to closing for the Christmas period. It would have been good practice to tell the resident that it would respond when it reopened on 5 January 2023.
The resident chased a response to the repairs on 21 December 2022 and 5 January 2023. The landlord noted on 12 January 2023 that she phoned several times without response. it has not provided details of these calls, which, again, indicates an issue with its record keeping. Its lack of response to the issues raised from mid-December 2022 onwards is a failing, which likely caused the resident distress, particularly due to having a young child in the property.
The void post work inspection report noted there were no plumbing facilities for a washing machine. It is a failing that the landlord did not resolve this before the resident moved in, which led her to raise this issue and likely caused inconvenience and distress. In fact, the landlord did not resolve the issue until 20 May 2023, which meant the resident could not use a washing machine in the property until nearly six months after she agreed the tenancy. This is a significant failing that no doubt inconvenienced the resident and likely caused distress.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord raised an out of hours job due to the resident having no heating or hot water. However, it cancelled this in error and did not fix the boiler until 22 January 2023. It had attended on 21 January 2023 but left due to a fire in another flat. The resident reported no heating or hot water again on 26 January 2023. The landlord also cancelled this job in error before fixing the boiler on 1 February 2023. This meant the resident and her young child were without heating and hot water for 4 days and then a further 5 days, 9 days in total, during the winter period. This was not appropriate. The landlord failed to complete these 2 emergency repairs within 24 hours, which was not in line with its repairs policy. There is also no evidence that it considered the resident’s heating needs by offering electric heaters, which is a further failing.
In her complaint, the resident said she was without heating off and on until the landlord repaired the boiler on 24 February 2023. Neither party has provided any evidence of problems reported after 1 February 2023, so we are unable to make a determination on this further point.
Apart from the boiler, silverfish and washing machine issues, the landlord raised 7 jobs on 18 January 2023 in response to the resident’s reports of repairs since mid-December 2022 but did not contact the resident. This was not appropriate, as the landlord needs to ensure it raises repair requests at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it then completes repairs at the earliest opportunity.
This Service’s spotlight report on repairs makes recommendations about delivering a good repairs service, which should be a high priority for landlords. Living in a home in a poor state of repair can have a significant impact on residents, which can cause stress and frustration, and damage the ongoing relationship with their landlord, as residents are faced with the issue every day.
The landlord’s continued lack of contact is a failing, which led the resident to chase the repairs again on 26 January 2023 and raise a formal complaint on 31 January 2023.
The landlord arranged to undertake repairs on 20 and 21 February 2023 but there is a lack of clarity regarding these visits, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. After speaking to the resident on 23 February 2023, it issued an updated complaint response in which it committed to complete 3 outstanding repairs on 1 March 2023 – the bathroom fan not working, the push plug in the bathroom sink being stuck and the damaged television socket. However, there is no record of the call, which again indicates a record keeping issue.
On 3 March 2023, the resident confirmed the landlord had fixed the bathroom fan and sink, but not the television socket. She also raised new issues – the bathroom vinyl had lifted behind the sink and toilet, the toilet flush worked but one of the buttons was broken, heat was escaping through a gap under the front door and there were ‘huge cracks’ in the main bedroom. The landlord arranged to address these issues alongside those raised as part of the formal complaint on 31 January 2023. It also included bathroom works following an out-of-hours leak reported on 28 March 2023, an issue with the hallway vent reported on 28 March 2023 and a kitchen door issue reported on 26 April 2023. Its action in including more recent repairs as part of the formal complaint likely caused confusion, as it should have logged these new issues separately and formed a separate stage 1 response.
From 31 March 2023 until the end of June 2023, there is evidence that the resident chased repairs on 10 occasions and that the landlord contacted the resident to try to arrange repairs on 8 other occasions. The landlord and resident had trouble arranging visits due to the resident working full-time during the week. This contributed to the delays in the landlord completing works.
A surveyor attended on 3 April 2023 and 9 June 2023, but there was no access due to the resident not being home. However, there is no evidence that the resident was aware of the visits, which further indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. The resident agreed for the landlord to visit on 13 April 2023, but it was unable to gain access and posted a card through the front door.
On 26 April 2023, the resident said the landlord could complete repairs on 1 and 8 May 2023, which were bank holidays. The landlord did not respond to tell the resident whether it would visit on these dates, which is a failing.
On 15 May 2023, the resident confirmed her availability for the landlord to complete repairs on Saturday, 20 May 2023. The landlord agreed to undertake ‘complaint resolution works’ regarding the bathroom, bedroom, kitchen and front door on this date. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 5 June 2023, the resident confirmed the landlord had repaired holes in the bedroom, enabled her to install a washing machine and repaired the gap under the front door. She said issues remained regarding the hallway flooring due to silverfish, a stench from the vent in the hallway and the kitchen door being difficult to open.
The landlord arranged to return on 16 June 2023. During the scheduled visit time, the resident phoned to check this was still going ahead. The landlord said an IT issue meant it would not be visiting. It is a failing that the landlord did not contact the resident to tell her this, which likely caused her inconvenience. The landlord did then attend on 24 June 2023 to fix a leak and the washbasin in the bathroom and resolve the issue with a kitchen door. However, some repairs remained outstanding. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why these matters remained outstanding, which is a further failing.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had provided internal feedback to prevent substantial delays in completing repairs. The landlord’s records are not clear regarding the dates it should have completed each repair, which, again, indicates an issue with its record keeping. It accepted in its stage 2 response that it did not complete all repairs until July 2023. This was not appropriate and highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs.
Apart from gas, washing machine and boiler issues, there is evidence that the resident raised 19 other issues for repair. It is usual practice for a landlord to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. However, of the 19 repairs, it only resolved 2 plug socket issues within 28 days. It took between 7 weeks and 8 months to resolve the other repairs. The landlord failed to resolve the silverfish issue until July 2023, which was approximately 8 months after the resident initially reported this, during which time she had concerns about putting flooring down. The resident experienced excessive delays in the landlord completing most of the repairs, which was not appropriate.
The landlord offered compensation totalling £351 in recognition of its failings in response to the repairs. Included in this, it awarded £1 per day from the date of the formal complaint on 31 January 2023 until it had completed all repairs at the end of July 2023.
The landlord’s failings will have had a significant impact on the resident. Overall, taking into account the above, we consider there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of handling of reports of repairs and silverfish and an order has been made for remedy.
In this case, it has been difficult to determine the exact course of events due to gaps in the evidence provided. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the resident. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. A further order has therefore been made that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents.

Complaint handling

The resident complained via webform on 5 and 26 January 2023, but the landlord did not respond. Its lack of response is a failing and prompted the resident to log a formal complaint on 31 January 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 February 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023, although it incorrectly dated this as 2022. Therefore, it acted within the required timeframes.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to a formal complaint on 13 January 2023 and, instead, closed the complaint. This was not appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord said it had learned from this by putting additional resource and checks in place to ensure this did not happen again, which was appropriate.
On 23 February 2023, the landlord issued an updated complaint response, which it also incorrectly dated as 2022. It said it had completed most repairs and listed the remaining repairs to complete on 1 March 2023. The landlord offered compensation, which included £50 for not escalating the complaint sooner. The resident accepted its offer on 24 February 2023.
The landlord has acknowledged that it effectively created an additional stage to its complaints process by issuing an updated complaint response. This was not the correct action to take. We would have expected the landlord to issue a further response by escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
The resident reported outstanding repairs and new issues to the landlord on 3 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this as an escalation request on 6 March 2023. However, the Code sets out that new issues raised should be logged as a new complaint. While the resident may have been happy for the other issues to have been addressed at stage 2, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified this with the resident. Not doing so may have denied her the opportunity to have the further issues investigated through a 2-stage complaints process.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident chased a stage 2 response on 30 March 2023, 26 April 2023 and 5 June 2023. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where a complaint response cannot be provided within the published timescales, the landlord must contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and give a new date to expect the response. The landlord’s failure to do this was not appropriate in the circumstances.
On 3 July 2023, we informed the landlord that the resident no longer wanted to escalate the complaint. By this point, 83 working days had passed since the resident originally asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord issued another updated complaint response. This, again, was not the correct action to take. It said the resident had agreed to close the complaint without escalation and accepted compensation, which included an increased offer of £100 for its complaint handling and communication.
Due to the resident remaining dissatisfied, she again asked to escalate the complaint on 16 August 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 17 August 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. While the landlord responded the resident’s latest escalation request after 21 working days, only 1 day out of time, overall it was 135 working days since the resident originally asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Despite its stage 1 response saying it had learned from failing to escalate the resident’s complaint sooner by putting additional resource and checks in place, the resident experienced an excessive delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it again should have escalated the complaint sooner. It offered an additional £170 for its poor complaint handling and the impact that this had on the resident. The significant delay in issuing its stage 2 response despite the resident chasing this on several occasions is a failing. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. It also delayed her from bringing the complaint for investigation.
While it is appropriate that the landlord accepted its complaint handling failings, it had not learned from its earlier service failures given that it then failed to escalate the complaint for an excessive period at stage 2. Where a landlord accepts failings in its service, it needs to ensure it embeds learning into its process going forward.
The landlord offered a total of £270 compensation to recognise its complaint handling failures. This amount falls in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact. However, this has not prevented a finding of maladministration given the landlord’s failure to demonstrate learning and embed this in its processes going forward.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the Code. This Code sets out the requirements that landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should therefore consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs and silverfish.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from the Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to establish if the issues have been resolved. If not, it should agree a timebound action plan with the resident, aimed at resolving any outstanding repair issues.
3. Pay compensation totalling £1,621 to the resident, inclusive of the £621 already offered, in recognition of the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must make these payments directly to the resident, less any amount/s already paid.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. Conduct a case review to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this review.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.