Midland Heart Limited (202314350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314350

Midland Heart Limited

19 December 2024

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. Various repairs in the bathroom and to the flooring.
2. Damp and mould.
3. The formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident did not raise damp and mould as part of her formal complaint to the landlord and so under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme this part of her complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint.
The resident has told this Service that she has been reporting damp and mould since 2020. She has raised the issue by asking for repairs during the complaints process, on several occasions requesting the landlord to take action, after the stage 1 response. However, there is no evidence it was raised as part of her formal complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has made a personal injury claim in relation to damp and mould to the landlord’s insurers. She also included damp and mould within a letter of claim sent by her solicitors to the landlord in November 2023.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and has recorded that the resident has told it she has anxiety and depression.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, and keeping in repair the installations for water, sanitation, and heating. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy says that it will carry out emergency repairs, where there is a danger to life or property, within 24 hours. It will set target times for repairs which take into account danger to health, safety, and security, but does not set out any repair timeframes.
The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) within its complaints policy. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is not able to respond within these timescales it will agree an extension of time with the resident.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

On 6 September 2021 the resident reported mould on her bathroom tiles and that her bath panel was rotten. The landlord attended and replaced the bath panel. Its notes say there was no mould, but the resident was unhappy with the age and condition of the tiles. The resident reported that some tiles had fallen off and regrouting was needed on 24 November 2021, and the landlord arranged an inspection for 11 January 2022.
The landlord inspected on that date, repaired a leak on the toilet, cleaned mould from the ceiling and booked in further works for 16 February 2022. It also noted that the resident was going to ask for a surveyor to inspect as the bathroom was old and in poor condition. The resident called it on 17 January 2022 and asked for a bathroom renewal survey. She also sent photographs to the landlord. In an internal email it said it explained that the bathroom was not due for renewal until 2026.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord sent an internal email which confirmed it would not survey until 2026, but it would clean a small area of mould, remove boxing and regrout tiles. It emailed the resident who called it to say she was not happy with its decision. During the call it explained that it had to repair what it could but said tiling was her responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It said it would raise a complaint for her. It also sent and internal email to ask if it could install an extractor fan to help with condensation. The resident called it on 15 February 2022 to chase up her request for an extractor fan.
The resident called the landlord on 2 March 2022, and it raised a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs since she moved in and that it had not completed repairs it had said it would.
2. The bathroom flooring and toilet were meant to be replaced but had not been.
3. Having made a complaint previously.
The same day the resident reported a leak from the bathroom which went through her kitchen ceiling which the landlord attended that day. It also carried out a mould treatment and said it was chasing the extractor fan. On 7 March 2022 the resident called the landlord and reported her bathroom and landing floorboards had lifted. It booked a repair for 11 April 2022.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord inspected the property in response to the resident’s complaint and noted the findings in an internal email the following day. These related to repairs within the bathroom including bath and sink plugs, sink waste, broken wall tiles, plaster repairs, wanting a new toilet, needing to replace skirting board, repair floorboards, replace bathroom flooring and fit an extractor fan.
The resident called the landlord on 15 March 2022 to discuss her complaint. She said her desired outcome was to have the bathroom fully repaired and said that her toilet was leaking. The following day it emailed her and asked for a 10 working days extension of time to provide its stage 1 response.
On 21 March 2022 the resident called the landlord to discuss her complaint and asked for the appointment for her floorboards to be brought forward. It raised appointments to complete the repairs and booked these for the week beginning 4 April 2022. It also raised a repair to install the extractor fan.
On a date not known to this Service, but after 25 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response which it incorrectly dated 14 March 2022, in which it:
1. Stated the complaint was about outstanding repairs, which it listed as per its inspection, and that the complaint was made during a call on 2 March 2022.
2. Confirmed it had made an appointment for the outstanding work for 4 April 2022, but had brought this forward to 25 March 2022. It said it had attended on that date and booked to complete the works on 30 March 2022.
3. Upheld the complaint due to its handling of the repairs and lack of communication. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £510 compensation, made up of £100 for communication failings and £410 for delay in completing repairs.
4. Said how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident called the landlord on 5 April 2022 about the repairs. She said the sink plug and waste, and floorboards had not been repaired. Its records say it completed the bathroom repairs on 6 April 2022, but does not say when the floorboards were repaired.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord raised a repair to install the extractor fan. Its records say there was a no access on 10 August 2022, and it rebooked it for 1 September 2022, when it recorded a further no access. The resident called it on 10 October 2022 to chase the installation and the landlord said there had been no accesses. She also said the flooring was lifting and she had damp and mould in the property. The landlord recalled the flooring repairs and booked a damp and mould inspection. It also rebooked the installation for 29 November 2022, but this was also recorded as a no access.
The resident called the landlord on 21 October 2022 and asked for an update on her complaint. It said it had provided a letter which set out the repairs it needed to do. On 4 November 2022 the landlord repaired the flooring and inspected for damp and mould. It said there was no sign of damp or mould.
The resident called the landlord on 17 November 2022 to chase an update to her complaint. She called to chase again on 28 November 2022, and it said it would send her an update by email that day. It provided a complaint update letter (second stage 1 response) that day in which it:
1. Offered to arrange a surveyor’s inspection.
2. Offered further compensation of £228 for poor workmanship to the floor and £170 for poor communication and inconvenience totalling £398.
3. Said how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 22 December 2022 the resident reported mould on the bathroom ceiling and the landlord raised a repair for 12 January 2023. It also booked the extractor fan installation for this date, which was then recorded as a no access and rebooked for 22 February 2023. She called the landlord on 12 January 2023 and said she needed it to resolve the damp and mould. She said it was affecting her son who had needed to go into hospital. She said she made complaints and was not happy with the outcomes, or the landlord painting over the damp.
The resident called the landlord again on 30 January 2023 and said she wanted to make a new complaint, as she had not been contacted and the landlord’s surveyor did not attend the previous week. It raised an inspection for the following day, which it completed and recommended it install a new bathroom. It installed a new bathroom in February or March 2023, but has not provided evidence of on which dates this was completed to this Service.
On 7 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to complain about the lack of contact she had received regarding her complaint. It provided a third stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2023 in which it:
1. Apologised for its delays in repairs.
2. Offered additional compensation of £1,107.50 made up of:
  1. An unrelated £150 for not providing temporary heating.
  2. £270 for poor communications.
  3. £687.50 for delays in repairs and bathroom renewal and for inconvenience caused.
3. Said how the complaint could be escalated if the resident wished to do so.
Between 6 April 2023 and 2 May 2023, the resident called the landlord 3 times to discuss her repairs and complaint asking for call backs. On 21 April 2023 the landlord raised a mould inspection for 25 April 2023, but there was a no access on that date. She called it again on 30 May 2023 and said she had not been called back despite her several requests.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord called the resident and said it would book a damp inspection for the following day, and a mould wash for 21 June 2023. The following day it said in a report that it had carried out works but needed to return to plaster the ceiling (following a leak from radiator pipework) and treat the bedroom for mould. The landlord provided a further (fourth) stage 1 response on 13 June 2023 to offer additional compensation of £497 for poor workmanship which led to the leak, decoration costs and delays in mould treatment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 June 2023 to acknowledge her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, which it said she made on 21 June 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of the escalation request to this Service. It provided its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023 in which it said:
1. The reason for escalation was that the resident believed additional compensation should have been offered.
2. It apologised for its service failure, poor workmanship, communications, and complaints handling.
3. There had been a failing in escalating the complaint and apologised for the oversight. It offered a further £170 compensation for this failing.
4. The resident had completed its complaints process and how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 27 July 2023 the resident called the landlord and said she was not happy with the outcome of her complaint, and she still had outstanding repairs. She said she had not been told about any future appointments. The landlord responded by email on 9 August 2023 and said she had exhausted its complaints procedure and that she could approach this Service. It also said it had completed the repairs subject to the complaint.
The resident called the landlord on 8 September 2023 about an unrelated issue, and said she still had damp and mould which had affected her son’s health. It raised an inspection which it carried out on or around 27 September 2023. In an internal email it said it did not find any damp or mould at the property. It said the resident said it was behind the wardrobe, but this could not be moved. It also checked the basement at the resident’s request but did not find any damp or mould. It identified repairs including to the bathroom extractor fan, which it said she had not reported previously.
Between 1 and 11 November 2023 the landlord raised a new inspection which the resident cancelled as she said she did not trust the landlord’s surveyor. She told it she had approached this Service and a disrepair solicitor. She also submitted a personal injury claim relating to her son’s health and damp and mould to the landlord’s insurers. On 14 November 2023 the landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey, and concluded there was a small amount of black mould in the front bedroom, and it recommended thermal boarding.
The resident’s solicitors sent the landlord a letter before claim for disrepair dated 28 November 2023 which it received in December 2023. In response it surveyed the property on 5 February 2024 and produced a report based on the defects raised within the letter of claim. It found no damp but some “minor mould spores” in the front room, bathroom ceiling and bedroom which it said were due to condensation. It noted the extractor fans were working. It raised works as per its disrepair schedule on 14 March 2024.
The landlord has told this Service that it arranged for the disrepair works to start on 4 June 2024 but there was a no access. It is currently trying to arrange a new start date. It also said no settlement has been reached or claim yet issued at court. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she believes the landlord only completed a full survey once her solicitors became involved. She was home for the appointment but did not hear the door and says the landlord did not call her at the time. She said she is awaiting a new appointment and is also bidding for a move to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that multiple repairs were raised and completed before, during, and after the events subject to this complaint. These repairs have not been included, or have been very briefly referred to, in this report for context only. The investigation has focused solely on the matters considered under the complaint as made to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs in the bathroom and to the flooring

When the resident raised repairs in September 2021 the landlord attended to complete them. It noted that she was not happy with the condition of the bathroom, and after her repairs request in November 2021 it agreed to inspect. It did this on the agreed appointment date, carried out repairs and booked follow on works. The landlord accepted responsibility for the repairs it was responsible for under the tenancy agreement and carried them out within a reasonable timeframe.
After the resident requested a bathroom renewal survey the landlord considered this and responded promptly to inform her that the bathroom was not due for renewal based on its cyclical timeframe. It offered to carry out further repairs and reasonably explained that it needed to repair rather than replace where it could, which is in line with industry practice. However, it also said that replacing or refixing tiles was the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. Having reviewed this it is not clear that this is correct, as the landlord agreed to repair internal walls and tiles are affixed to this to maintain the integrity of the wall from water damage, and so are not merely decorative. Therefore, the landlord was incorrect in its position, and this was a failing. It did, however, consider making an improvement by installing an extractor fan which was positive.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord correctly surveyed the property, to identify and clarify the outstanding repairs complained about, with her. This formed its understanding of the complaint in compliance with paragraph 4.2 of the Code. Following this the landlord correctly raised appointments to complete the repairs.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it had brought forward repairs, which was solution focused. It also accepted its failings in handling repairs and communications and offered £510 compensation for this.
The landlord carried out some repairs on 4 April 2022, which was within 4 weeks of the date of the inspection, which was within a reasonable amount of time. However, the resident had to chase the remaining repairs which was a failing. It is also not clear from the records when the flooring repairs were completed which was a further failing. There was also a further failing in the workmanship in the flooring repairs which led to the job being recalled.
On 17 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update to her complaint. Rather than escalating the complaint the landlord provided a second stage 1 response (which will be addressed below). It offered further compensation of £398 for its failing in the flooring repairs and communications.
After the resident asked to make a new complaint on 30 January 2023 (addressed below) the landlord proactively agreed to inspect again and agreed to install a new bathroom, which was solution focused. It completed the installation within the following 2 months, although failed to evidence exactly when it did this. It then provided a third stage 1 response in which it accepted further failings and delays in the bathroom works and poor communications. It offered £957.50 in further compensation.
In its stage 2 response the landlord again accepted its service failures in delays to repairs, quality of workmanship and poor communication, but said the compensation it had already offered for this was appropriate and did not increase it.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
During its stage 1 responses and stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted and acknowledged its failings. It apologised for these and said that it wanted to learn from them and arranged repairs to resolve the outstanding issues. While the landlord could have considered the bathroom for renewal sooner, once it did, it agreed to this and carried it out within a reasonable time. However, it also accepted it could have done this sooner. The landlord demonstrated, despite its failings, the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Its combined compensation offer (for the matters subject to this complaint) was £1,865.50 in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and this was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

When the resident first expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s decision not to survey her bathroom for renewal it said it would raise a complaint for her. However, it failed to do so. When the resident called it on 2 March 2021 it raised a stage 1 complaint, which included that she had made a complaint previously. It failed to acknowledge the complaint but did inspect to record all the repairs the resident wanted included in her complaint.
On 16 March 2022, 10 working days after the complaint was made, the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension of time of 10 working days. This was in line with its policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The date on which the landlord provided its stage 1 response is not known, as the date of the letter is incorrect, and this was a failing. Within its response it failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction and that it had not raised a complaint following this, which was a further failing.
The resident asked for an update on her complaint on 21 October 2022. The landlord has told this Service that by this time the complaint had been closed but that it re-opened it. It is not clear why the landlord decided to do this, rather than escalating the complaint, or recording a new complaint for the resident, and this was a failing. It also failed to acknowledge or set out its understanding of the complaint at that time. It then failed to communicate with the resident leading her to chase it until it provided a second stage 1 response on 28 November 2022, which should have been a stage 2 response. Over a month had passed by this point before the landlord replied in any event which was an unreasonable delay.
When the resident said she wanted to make a new complaint on 30 January 2023 the landlord failed to raise one. Following the resident expressing further dissatisfaction about lack of contact regarding her complaint (which one it is not clear) it then provided a third stage 1 response, which also included unrelated issues, which was a failing. The landlord appeared to have confused itself and was not following its complaints policy or the Code.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord provided a fourth stage 1 response, which addressed issues unrelated to the initial complaint. The landlord should have raised this as a separate new complaint, but instead it added it to a line of responses from the original complaint, which had become convoluted and confusing.
The landlord said the resident escalated her complaint on 21 June 2022 and it acknowledged this within its 5 working day policy timeframe. It provided its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023 which was within its 20-working day policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. Within its response it accepted it had failed to escalate the complaint sooner and apologised. It offered £170 compensation for this.
The landlord was trying to resolve the complaint, and accepted its multiple failings, apologised, and offered to do repairs and pay compensation. However, its complaints handling showed a lack of understanding about the stage of the complaint and its own process and policy. It failed to raise new complaints when the resident expressed dissatisfaction and especially about new matters unrelated to her original complaint. Instead, it provided additional stage 1 responses, outside of policy or Code timeframes, despite correctly stating in each one how the resident could escalate the complaint. It failed to escalate the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and its handling of the repairs stated within it.
There was severe maladministration due to how the landlord handled the complaint and its lack of clear communication around the complaint and complaints process. This shows that its complaints process was not operative effectively and led to further delays in resolving it, and in the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 additional compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of various repairs in the bathroom and to the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord did not raised complaints when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. It incorrectly added on separate matters to the existing complaint, provided multiple stage 1 responses and failed to escalate the complaint when it should have. This led to confusion and delays in the process.
There was reasonable redress as the landlord acknowledged and accepted its failings. It resolved the outstanding repairs within reasonable timeframes, agreed to and installed a new bathroom. It acknowledged where it had delayed and when its communications had been poor, apologised and offered reasonable compensation for this.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for complaints handling failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £500 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failings.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, arrange further training for its complaints handling staff to include when to open new complaints, response timeframes, and escalation of complaints.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay the compensation it offered to the resident within its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
2. Provide a new start day to the resident and carry out the repairs identified within its survey completed on 5 February 2024.
3. Provide a named contact, and contact details for that member of staff, to the resident to liaise with directly until the completion of the repairs.
4. Engage with the resident about her complaint about damp and mould.