Midland Heart Limited (202315369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315369

Midland Heart Limited

27 March 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. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s rent account.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. These included both physical and mental health conditions.
The resident began their tenancy on 28 November 2022. The available evidence indicates that on, or shortly after, that date they began reporting that repairs were needed. They also advised the landlord that they were unable to move into the property until it had completed the repairs.
Between 12 January 2023 and 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about several ongoing matters. They were unhappy about:
1. The landlord not having completed required repairs before it had let the property to them.
2. The standard of the works that the landlord had carried out in the property.
3. The delay in issuing decorating vouchers to them.
4. The landlord having requested that the resident’s universal credit (UC) payments were made directly to it.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint and issued its response on 26 January 2023. It said:
1. It had no record of the resident reporting, when their tenancy began, that they did not feel the property was fit to live in. It apologised for this.
2. It would inspect the property to identify all the necessary repairs.
3. It agreed that some of the work it had carried out was below the standard that should be expected. It would arrange to repair the damaged areas.
4. There had been administrative errors that had led to the delay in issuing decorating vouchers. It apologised and understood the resident had now received them.
5. It understood the resident had agreed, when signing up to the tenancy, for their UC payments to be made direct to the landlord. It could arrange for the relevant team to contact the resident if they wished to discuss this further.
6. Any matters relating to personal injury would need to be considered by its insurers. It provided details on how to submit a claim.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. It issued its final response on 29 March 2023. It said:
1. It apologised that it had been necessary for repairs to take place after the resident’s tenancy had started. It agreed the number of required repairs had not been acceptable and the quality of some repairs had not been up to its normal standard.
2. It had completed most of the repairs and fixed the below-standard work. It would complete the remaining outstanding works on 3 April 2023.
3. It apologised for the resident’s experience with poor communications.
4. It had agreed to cancel the direct UC payments. It would also write off the outstanding rent arrears.
5. It offered £1,360.28 in compensation. This comprised of:
  1. £300 for the handling of repairs.
  2. £170 for poor communications and inconvenience caused.
  3. £100 for poor communications after its stage 1 response.
  4. £790.28 to write off the rent arrears.
On 27 July 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to this Service.
The Ombudsman understand the resident moved to a new property on 8 January 2024.
On 2 April 2024 the resident advised that, while they had moved to a new property, they still wished to pursue the complaint. This was due to the landlord’s delays in completing repairs and progressing their complaint. The resident said that they were seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The landlord has provided this service with a copy of its ‘Void Standard’ policy. This sets out the minimum expected condition of a property before it is let to a tenant. Among other things, the standard indicates:
1. The property should be clean and in a reasonable decorative condition. Where the decoration is in poor condition the landlord may issue decoration vouchers to the incoming tenant.
2. Walls and floors should be in a sound condition.
3. There should be no damp issues or areas of mould growth. Where necessary, damaged areas should be stain blocked and the decoration made good.
The landlord’s website indicates that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord has provided this Service with a significant amount of information about its contact with the resident. However, this is split between emails, notes from its rent team, and notes from its Customer Hub team. There is no clear link between these sources of information. At multiple points this information refers to other contact that has taken place, either with the resident or internally within the landlord, but the landlord has not provided us with copies of those contacts. This has impacted on our ability to fully understand what had taken place between the landlord and the resident.
The landlord’s record keeping also appears to have impacted on its ability to effectively communicate with the resident. On several occasions landlord staff needed to make contact with (or chase) other individuals and/or teams to obtain relevant information before they could respond to the resident. This left the resident without clear updates on the ongoing situation and is likely to have contributed to the number of times the resident contacted the landlord seeking an update.
It would have been better if the landlord had taken a pro-active approach to information sharing, both internally and with the resident. This would have better enabled its staff to respond promptly and fully to the resident. Where this was not possible the landlord should have provided clear timescales for when it would respond. This may have meant the resident felt less need to chase the landlord for updates. It also, if necessary, would have allowed the landlord to manage the level of communications with the resident.
There is no dispute that the resident’s property needed repairs. The landlord has provided a copy of required works identified by its voids team. However, it is unclear whether the voids team identified the required works during the void period, or when they re-visited the property after the resident’s tenancy had begun, or if the list is a combination of both. It is also unclear which, if any, of the works the landlord carried out during the void period.
The landlord has told this Service that it had carried out the identified works over the following dates:
1. 22 December 2022.
2. 26 January 2023.
3. 5 April 2023
4. 11 April 2023.
Having reviewed the list of identified works, as well as details of the works that were carried out on the above dates, it is apparent that the landlord should have completed a number of them before the property met its void standard. Not having carried out these repairs while the property was void was therefore a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence also indicates that it attended the resident’s property on other dates between December 2022 and March 2023 to carry out other works. These included cleaning the guttering, renewing a light switch, repairing an area of flooring the resident had identified as damaged after moving in, cleaning the property (after its plasterers had not appropriately protected the areas where they were working), and rectifying damage that its contractors had caused while carrying out works.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to install additional radiators after the resident had reported the property was cold. The landlord has explained this would not be something that it could have identified during a void inspection as it only checks that the heating system is operating. Any issues with heating levels would only become apparent when the property was in daily use. The Ombudsman consider this is a reasonable explanation.
The resident has stated there was damp and mould in their property when they moved in. When reporting this to the landlord they advised they had not noticed it before moving in as it was behind the wallpaper in the bedroom. The landlord’s evidence shows that, following a call from the resident on 20 December 2022, it had checked internally and confirmed that it had inspected the issue. It intended to treat the issue and re-plaster/skim the affected area. This was a reasonable approach for it to have taken.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had inspected the property and there was no damp and mould present. While the landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of this inspection, we have noted that there does not appear to have been any further reports from the resident about damp and/or mould in the previously reported area.
The resident has said they were unhappy that the landlord had not provided alternative temporary accommodation and had described the property as ‘habitable’. Any decision to offer temporary accommodation would be at the discretion of the landlord. The landlord advised the resident on 7 February 2023 that, having inspected the property on 30 January 2023, its surveyor had not recommended that it provide temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinions of its staff when making a decision about temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman is also mindful that the list of identified repairs, as well as the details of the repairs carried out, do not appear to be so serious as to clearly indicate that the property would either be uninhabitable until the landlord had completed the repairs or that the repairs could not be completed with the resident living there. There is no basis on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude that the landlord’s description of the property as ‘habitable’ was not appropriate or that it should have offered temporary accommodation to the resident.
While there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property, it did accept this had been the case in its complaint responses. This was a reasonable position for it to have taken. It was also reasonable for the landlord to have explained that it had completed most of the required works and to have provided a date by which it would complete any outstanding works.
We have noted that the landlord did not complete the outstanding works on 3 April 2023 (as it stated it would). This instead appears to have happened on 5 and 11 April 2023. While it would have been ideal for the landlord to have completed the work on the original date there is no evidence that the resident had suffered any additional detriment by the delay.
In their complaint the resident was clear that the outstanding repair issues were preventing them from moving into the property. They advised the landlord in March 2023 that they had begun moving into the property from 3 March 2023. In their correspondence with this Service they indicated they had been ‘sofa surfing’ until April 2023. There is also no evidence that the resident reported or raised concerns about any of the identified repair issues again after April 2023. Any post-April 2023 issues appear to have been new repair matters.
The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, by April 2023, the landlord had completed all the repairs/works that it should have completed while the property was void. It had also completed the additional repairs/works that the resident had identified after beginning their tenancy.
While the available evidence indicates the landlord did complete some works within 28 days of being raised, there were a significant number that took longer than 28 days to complete. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate. The Ombudsman has noted that there is no evidence that any of the delays were longer than 3-months. This is based on an approximately 4-month period between the resident starting their tenancy and 11 April 2023, minus the landlord’s 28 timescale for carrying out repairs.
Having reviewed the landlord’s compensation offer, the Ombudsman considers it was a reasonable amount to redress the failures identified in this case.
The landlord has advised that it had calculated the offered amount in accordance with its compensation matrix. This was in line with the requirements of its complaint policy and was appropriate. The offered amount is also within the range set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there have been failings which have had an adverse impact on a resident.
On this basis, the landlord had offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

The landlord’s evidence shows that, during the tenancy sign up, it had spoken to the resident about how they would pay their rent. The resident had confirmed they were happy for UC payments to be made directly to the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 December 2022 to ask how much UC was being paid towards their rent. This would indicate the resident was aware that their UC payment was going to be paid directly to the landlord.
On 3 February 2023 the resident made a formal request that the landlord contact the Department for Work and Pensions to cancel the direct payment. The landlord passed the request to the relevant team and agreed it would cancel the payments. This was reasonable.
The resident has told this Service they were unhappy that the landlord had said it had requested direct payments as it deemed the resident was a ‘vulnerable tenant’. While the Ombudsman appreciates why the resident may disagree with this assessment, the landlord has explained its decision was based on the information the resident had provided at sign-up. This had included details of their medical conditions as well as a history of homelessness. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to use the information it had received to assess the resident and consider what steps may be appropriate to support them.
Having considered the available evidence, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It aimed to issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it was unable to meet these timescales, it would agree an appropriate extension with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2023. This was 1 working day after the resident’s initial contact to raise a complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 10 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 30 working days after it had confirmed it was escalating the resident’s complaint. However, it had contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 to advise that it needed a further 10 working days to issue its response. This was because it needed to fully consider additional information the resident had provided on 13 March 2023. The request for an extension was made 20 working days after it had confirmed the complaint escalation. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
While there is no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord to agree the extension, there is also no evidence that this caused any detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider this would be sufficient to constitute a service failure.
The landlord did accept that it could have improved how it handled its post-stage 1 communications with the resident. It is clear from the available evidence that the resident did need to chase responses from the stage 1 complaint handler. As previously outlined in paragraph 15, it would have been better for the landlord to have been pro-active in its communications and to have kept the resident updated with clear timescales about when it would be carrying required works.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for this failing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable level of redress. It is in line with the level of award the Ombudsman would consider making for similar failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.