Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd (202324175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324175

Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd

27 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:
1. handling of repairs to the heating system.
2. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. response to the resident’s concerns about standing water.
4. handling of a shower repair.
5. response to the resident’s request that it remove a cat flap.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. She has lived at the property since August 2022 with her 3 children. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 August 2023 about the “poor condition” of the property. She said:
1. The warm air heating system in the property was “poor and unsuitable” and did not work. She had been reporting the issue to the landlord since the previous winter but it had not resolved it. Her family had “really suffered” during the winter as a result of the property being cold.
2. She was concerned that a pipe from the warm air unit, located in a cupboard in her children’s bedroom, was a safety hazard.
3. She had reported a number of repair issues to the landlord previously but it had not yet addressed them. This included that:
  1. There was a “pervasive damp problem” in the property. She said she reported this “several times”.
  2. Standing water regularly accumulated on the raised path at the front of her property.
  3. Water was dripping from her electric shower.
  4. A cat flap had not been fixed.
4. These issues were ongoing since she moved in. It was affecting her health as it was “very stressful”. She was already under stress due to a health condition and recent medical procedure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It said:
1. Warm air heating was “typical” in properties of the same type and age as the resident’s property. Provided it was fully functioning, the system in place was “suitable”.
2. Its contractor previously attended the property and confirmed to it that the heating system was working. It told the landlord the resident had switched the system off and that it had explained to her how it was supposed to be used.
3. It was aware the fan for the heating system was now faulty. It was not possible to repair this so it was in the process of obtaining quotes for a new electrical heating system to be installed. It hoped to have the quotes within a week and would arrange for the works to then be completed promptly.
4. Its contractor carried out damp treatment and anti-mould painting on 26 February 2023. The resident said she was “extremely satisfied” with the outcome. It had therefore addressed her previous reports of damp.
5. There were no outstanding reports of damp. If the resident wanted the landlord to reassess this, she should raise a new job with the repairs team.
6. Its contractor attended the property and investigated the standing water issue. It found that the water gathered due to the build and design of the raised path. The “scale and cost” of remedying this “far outweighed the benefits”. The resident should instead manage the issue herself, for example, “with a yard broom”.
7. Its contractor was booked to repair the shower on 5 September 2023.
8. Its records indicated that the cat flap was not broken. There was therefore no outstanding repair for it to complete. If this was not the case, the resident should let it know.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 September 2023. In her escalation request she said:
1. The issue with the heating system was never that she did not know how to operate it. It was that when it was switched on, it was not blowing warm air into the property to heat it up. She had raised this on “several occasions” with the landlord and it failed to thoroughly investigate this initially. She was glad it had now confirmed it would replace the system.
2. She was concerned the warm air unit, which was housed in a kitchen cupboard, posed an asbestos risk. The last time contractors checked the unit, they left the front cover of it open.
3. The pipe from the heating system located inside the cupboard in her children’s bedroom was covered by a chicken wire grid. She was concerned it was a health and safety risk.
4. The landlord had not yet fully dealt with the damp problem in the property. She had chased it on “several occasions” and told it that walls required treatment and there was an unpleasant smell at the entrance of the property due to damp.
5. She was concerned the standing water was a health hazard as it was “an ideal place for bacteria” and could become a breeding ground for insects. Mosquitos and drain insects had previously infested the property due to this, and the issue sometimes reoccurred when the front door was left open for fresh air.
6. It was not her responsibility to manage the standing water with a broom as the landlord had suggested in its stage 1 response. The landlord was required to address it as it had a legal obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
7. The contractor had rescheduled the shower repair to 7 September 2023.
8. She had asked the landlord to seal up the cat flap on “multiple occasions”. It had never attended the property to inspect it. She was therefore surprised by its conclusion in the stage 1 response that it was not broken and that there was no outstanding works order.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It said:
1. The reason it did not consider replacing the heating system sooner, was because its contractor advised it that it was functioning. Now that it was aware the fan on the heating system was not working, it was taking steps to rectify this by replacing the system. It was satisfied it had appropriately explained all this in its stage 1 response.
2. It was sorry its contractor left the front cover of the warm air unit open following an inspection. This did not, however, pose a health and safety risk as the asbestos in the kitchen cupboard where the unit was located was not disturbed.
3. Repairs to plasterwork and internal walls in the property were outstanding. This followed on from the previous damp treatment, but the outstanding work was not in itself damp related. However, it acknowledged it failed in its stage 1 response to identify what outstanding repairs the resident was referring to when she raised concern about the walls.
4. It prioritised its resources and budget for essential repairs, such as replacing heating systems. It did not consider the work required to resolve the drainage and standing water issue at the front of the property to be a high priority. As such, the work would be scheduled as part of its future planned maintenance programme.
5. Its contractor attended the property on 7 September 2023 as scheduled to repair the leak in the shower. However, it was unable to complete the repair as it had to order a replacement shower unit. The contractor would contact the resident once the replacement unit was in stock.
6. The cat flap appeared to be in good repair, but the issue was that the resident wanted it to be removed. Although this was not something the landlord would normally do, it had asked a contractor to attend the property and seal up the cat flap.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She referred it to the Ombudsman for investigation. She told us the outcome she sought was for the landlord to resolve the standing water and “rising damp” issues in the property.
She also advised us that the landlord had duly installed electric heaters in the property in October 2023. However, it did not remove the old warm air unit from the kitchen cupboard or pipework from the bedroom wardrobe. Given the health and safety concerns outlined in her complaint, she told us a further outcome she sought was for the landlord to remove the old warm air unit and pipework.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the heating system

The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and proper working order the heating system in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete them within 5 working days. This includes heating failure in winter months.
2. attend to urgent repairs within 5 working days and complete them within 21 working days. This includes heating failure in summer months.
3. attend to non-urgent repairs within 21 working days and complete them within 60 working days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides landlords with a tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. The HHSRS identifies excess cold, which may be caused by an inefficient heating system, as a hazard.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) sets minimum standards for the condition of social housing properties. It requires landlords to ensure properties provide “a reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. Properties must have an efficient heating system and effective insulation in place.
The DHS recognises that there are a range of heating systems that may provide acceptable levels of thermal comfort, including warm air systems. That there was a warm air system in the resident’s property was therefore not in itself inappropriate. The issue in this case, however, was that the warm air system was not fully functioning and so was not ‘efficient’ as required by the DHS.
The resident’s tenancy began on 31 August 2022. On 16 September 2022 she emailed the landlord to flag a list of issues which she said existed from the day she moved in. This included that one of the bedrooms did not have a warm air heater in it. She also asked the landlord to check the warm air unit was functioning properly.
The landlord asked its contractor to attend the property and carry out a number of jobs, including inspecting the heating system and installing a heater in the bedroom. The contractor confirmed to the landlord in an email on 12 October 2022 that “everything [was] completed”, with the exception of a repair to window hinges.
This was not accurate as the contractor had not installed a heater in the bedroom. It was also unclear from the contractor’s email what its findings were in relation to the functionality of the warm air unit. Given the landlord’s repair obligations in relation to heating, it was inappropriate and a record keeping failure that it did not ensure there was a written account of the contractor’s findings.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the heating system and the lack of heater in one of the bedrooms. It took the landlord until late January 2023, which was over 4 months after she first raised the issue, before it installed a heater in the bedroom. Its delay in completing this job was inappropriate. It exceeded the timescale for completing what should have been an urgent repair as set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord did not explain to the resident at the time, or later in its complaint responses, why it had not identified at the void stage that a heater was required in the bedroom. It knew the resident’s 3 children would be living with her, therefore it could reasonably have anticipated that ‘thermal comfort’ as per the DHS was required in all 3 bedrooms. It was unreasonable that it took for the resident to have to request a heater was installed, and then pursue the issue with the landlord for over 4 months, before it completed the work.
In relation to the functionality of the warm air unit, as explained above, it was unclear from the landlord’s records what its contractor’s findings were in October 2022. The resident continued to report concerns to the landlord that the system was not working properly. The landlord therefore instructed a contractor to inspect the heating system and determine if it was “sufficient for the size of the house”.
The contractor attended the property on 25 January 2023. It confirmed in a follow up email to the landlord that it had completed an inspection. However, as occurred the previous October, the email contained no specific information about the contractor’s findings in relation to the functionality of the heating system. The landlord did not update the works order to detail the inspection findings, nor has it provided us with any reports from the contractor detailing its findings. This is a further example of poor record keeping by the landlord.
An operative of the landlord attended the property on 22 February 2023. He raised concerns internally following the visit that the heating system was “inadequate”. He explained that the vents were heating up, but no air was being forced out from them. This meant that heat was not being distributed around the property. The operative suggested in an internal email that the issue may be with the fan.
As the operative was not a heating engineer, the landlord appropriately raised a works order on 24 February 2023 for its heating contractor to check the system was functioning correctly. However, the contractor did not attend the property and the landlord marked the works order as ‘void’. It did not record why it was void. This was a further example of poor record keeping.
The landlord raised a further works order on 6 March 2023 for its heating contractor to check the system was functioning correctly. Although this was also inexplicably marked as ‘void’ by the landlord, its contractor attended the property that same day. It told the landlord in an email following its inspection that the resident “complained of it being cold but the warm air unit was off. We have explained it needs to be on for it to work and have advised how to use it.”
This appears to be the contractor visit that the landlord cited in its complaint responses. It said in its stage 2 response, “contractors visited the property previously and advised the system was switched off and pointed out to you how the system was supposed to be used. We were advised at that stage that the system worked sufficiently.”
The contractor did not say in the email to the landlord on 6 March 2023 that the system was working sufficiently. It said the unit was off when it visited and it told the resident how to switch it on. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to reply to the contractor to clarify whether it was satisfied the system was fully functioning, particularly given its own operative had reported that when the unit was switched on the fan was not working. It did not do so.
Two days later, on 8 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that the contractor “said the heating does not have the capability for the size of the rooms”. The landlord asked the contractor if it said this. It responded that it “did not tell the tenant that the heating [does] not work”. It explained that it discussed the installation of electric heaters with her, as this was a service it could provide. It provided the landlord with a quote. It said that the existing air vent system was not something it specialised in.
It remains unclear from this further email from the contractor what its findings were in relation to the functionality of the warm air system. The landlord however took its communications to mean that it was satisfied the system was working well. It said in an internal email on 8 March 2023 “we will not be renewing or carrying out any works to the heating system as the warm air heating is in working order.” This was not a logical conclusion given the contractor had not specifically confirmed the system was working well and, by its own admission, it did not specialise in warm air systems.
As proven by later inspection findings showing the system was not fully functioning, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not probe the contractor further and ask for a report on its findings. Had it done so, it may have been able to resolve the heating issues for the resident much sooner than it did.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s property manager, with whom the resident was in regular contact, raised concern internally that the heating system was not adequately heating the whole house. She had previously done so in January 2023. She queried whether this could be linked to ongoing damp issues in the property. The resident also continued to contact the landlord and report that the heating was not working.
The landlord did not send any further contractors out to the property to inspect the heating system at that stage. However, it appears to have accepted the property manager and resident’s assertion that the heating was not adequately heating the property. On 26 May 2023 it raised works orders in which it sought quotes from 3 contractors to replace the heating system. The works orders stated that, “The heaters in the property are not sufficient for the size of the house. They are small rectangular vents and they do not warm the house properly so the house is always cold.” It received quotes back from 2 of the contractors in late May and early June 2023.
By the time the resident submitted her complaint on 17 August 2023, the landlord had not taken any further action in relation to the heating. This was unreasonable given it had by that stage accepted the warm air unit was not adequately heating the house and it had sought and received quotes from contractors for replacing it. If it was not satisfied with the quotes it received, it should have promptly sought further quotes. That it did not meant it prolonged the period during which it failed to meet its statutory repairing obligations.
It was unreasonable that it took for the resident to raise a formal complaint before the landlord took any further action. Following its stage 2 response in September 2023, the landlord arranged for its contractor to decommission the warm air unit and install electric panel heaters throughout the property. The contractor completed this work in October 2023.
Although a new electrical system has now been installed, the resident still has heating concerns. She has recently told us that:
1. The landlord did not remove the decommissioned warm air unit from the kitchen cupboard or the pipework from the wardrobe in the children’s bedroom. She has health and safety concerns about these remaining in situ, particularly as the warm air unit is in a cupboard containing asbestos.
2. She is unhappy with the landlord’s choice of heating system as it is expensive to run. She said she is unable to afford to switch it on due to high electric bills.
In relation to the warm air unit and pipework remaining in situ, we note that the resident raised health and safety concerns in her August 2023 complaint and September 2023 escalation request. The landlord assured her in its stage 2 response that the unit remaining in the kitchen cupboard did not pose an asbestos risk. It did not respond to her concerns about the pipe in the children’s bedroom which was covered by a chicken wire grid. We have considered this omission further below under complaint handling.
We are aware that the landlord updated its asbestos survey of the property after the warm air unit was decommissioned. It advised the resident in May 2024 that it could board up the kitchen cupboard as this would cause less disruption to her than if it removed the warm air unit. The resident confirmed to it in response that she wanted the warm air unit and pipework removed. The landlord said it would consider this. It then appears to have attempted to arrange removal of the unit later in 2024 but was unable to agree a suitable time with the resident for this.
To provide clarity on its current position, we order the landlord to write to the resident and advise her if it is still willing to remove the warm air unit and pipework from the property. If it is, it should advise her when it can carry this work out and how long it will take. If the resident is unhappy with its stated position, she may raise a further complaint.
In relation to the resident’s financial concerns, while we sympathise with her situation, we are unable to investigate the landlord’s choice of heating system. She did not raise this issue as part of her complaint. Our remit is to investigate complaints that have been considered and responded to by the landlord through its internal complaints process.
If the resident wishes to raise a formal complaint with the landlord about its choice of heating system, she may do so. We note however that the DHS recognises that electric heaters can be an appropriate form of heating system. Other types of heating, such as oil and gas, can be as expensive to run and the price of all types of energy has gone up significantly in recent years.
If the resident has not already been in touch with a support organisation, such as Citizens Advice, to discuss her financial situation she may wish to consider this. Some landlords are able to provide residents with tenancy sustainment support, for example by working with them to review their outgoings or signposting them to grant schemes they may be eligible for. If this is a service the landlord provides, we recommend it offers this to the resident.
Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the heating system. The main reasons for this are that:
1. It took over 4 months to install a heater in a bedroom, meaning it failed to comply with the repair timeframes set out in its policy.
2. Its failure to record the findings from inspections carried out between October 2022 and March 2023 suggest it did not thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the warm air unit.
3. It appears to have accepted her concerns were valid by May 2023. However, both its responses in September 2023 read as though it had only recently become aware the system was not fully functioning and that it would begin the process of seeking quotes. It failed to acknowledge that it had been aware for some time of the issue and had previously sought quotes, but had taken no further action, contrary to its statutory repairing obligation.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience the maladministration caused her and for her time and trouble in pursuing the issue

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Damp and mould is a hazard identified by the HHSRS that can cause physical illnesses such as breathing difficulties and infections. The HHSRS also recognises damp and mould can adversely affect mental health. It states that the “mental and social health effects of dampness and mould should not be under-estimated. Damage to decoration from mould or damp staining and the smells associated with damp and mould can cause depression and anxiety.”
Given the serious implications of damp and mould, and its potential to spread throughout a property if not addressed, we expect landlords to adopt a zero tolerance approach to it. As detailed in our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, as soon as a resident reports such issues, landlords should take action to thoroughly investigate the cause. They should book any required repairs in promptly and communicate next steps clearly to residents. They should treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. We have found through our investigations that the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound.
It is evident from the resident’s correspondence with the landlord and with us that she was distressed by what she considered to be “pervasive” and “rising” damp in the property. She did not feel the landlord had taken her concerns seriously. As we will explain below, we have found that the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould was inappropriate and amounted to maladministration.
In January 2023 the landlord’s property manager told its repairs team that the resident had reported there was damp and mould throughout the property. The property manager queried whether this was connected to the resident’s concern that the warm air unit was not adequately heating the whole house. This led to the landlord asking its contractor to inspect the heating system and determine if it was “sufficient for the size of the house”. The landlord also asked the contractor to provide a quote for treating and painting damp and mould in the property.
The contractor attended the property on 25 January 2023. As we have outlined in the previous section above on heating, the contractor confirmed in a follow up email to the landlord that it had completed its inspection. However, it provided no specific information about its findings. It is not known from the email or any other records the landlord has given us whether the contractor established what had caused the damp and mould and the areas of the property impacted. As we have explained above, that the landlord did not obtain a written account of the contractor’s findings was inappropriate and a record keeping failure.
The contractor attended the property again on 26 February 2023 to carry out damp and mould treatment. The contractor emailed the landlord the same day to confirm:
1. It had removed and treated all mould.
2. It had damp sealed and stain blocked areas.
3. It had painted areas with anti-mould paint.
4. The resident was “extremely satisfied with the outcome”.
It is not clear from this email what areas of the property the contractor treated and if it had determined what had caused the damp in the first place. We asked the landlord if it had received a report from the contractor at any stage regarding its findings, but it had not. The only additional information it could provide us with was an invoice from the contractor, although this provided no more detail than the emails did.
The landlord suggested to us that there was previously a leak under the kitchen and that this was what caused the walls to be wet. While that might be the case, it has not provided us with any contemporaneous emails or other records from early 2023 to support that this was the cause of the damp. That it did not have definitive confirmation on file from its contractor as to what had caused the damp was a record keeping failure.
Although the resident was satisfied with the standard of the work carried out in February 2023, she remained concerned that there was still damp in the property. She raised this with the landlord in a number of emails prior to submitting her formal complaint, including:
1. On 10 April 2023 she reported a wall was “still wet”.
2. On 24 April 2023 she said the “rising damp” had worsened and the house smelt “bad despite constant cleaning”. She said she was concerned about her family’s health.
3. On 10 May 2023 she raised concern the “rising damp” was still not sorted. She explained she had hoped to decorate her property that summer but would be unable to do so if the damage to walls caused by the damp was not resolved.
Despite the resident raising these concerns, the landlord did not take prompt action to inspect the property as we would have expected it to. Instead, it asked the resident on 17 July 2023 to send it photos of the walls and other areas that she thought were affected by damp and mould. She duly did this although we do not know on what date. However, it is evident that by the time she submitted her complaint on 17 August 2023, the landlord had still not taken any action to investigate her concerns.
In her complaint the resident said there was “pervasive” damp in the entrance hall of the property that smelt bad. She said she had reported it to the landlord “several times” but it had not addressed the issue. In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to the work carried out in February 2023. It did not acknowledge that the resident had since contacted it a number of times to say she remained concerned about damp, and that it had failed to investigate this.
In her complaint escalation request the resident sent the landlord photographs of walls which she suggested were damaged due to damp. She said she had previously sent these photos to it and chased it on “several occasions” for a response to her concerns about damp and the smell it was causing. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had overlooked in its stage 1 response that there were outstanding repairs required to the walls and plasterwork. However, it concluded that these were the only repairs required and that they were not damp related.
It was unreasonable that, in its complaint responses, the landlord did not engage in a meaningful way with the resident’s ongoing concerns about damp. It relied on the fact it had carried out treatment in February 2023. Just because damp treatment is carried out once in a property, does not mean that future reports or concerns raised by a resident can be disregarded. The landlord should take all reports seriously. Its records did not reflect what its contractor’s findings were in January and February 2023 in relation to the underlying cause of the damp. All that the landlord appears to have been told by the contractor was that it had carried out damp treatment to unspecified “areas” of the property.
It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not investigate the resident’s further reports of damp between April and September 2023. During its stage 2 investigation it appears to have judged that the repairs required to the walls were superficial and not damp related based on photographs alone, when it should instead have carried out an inspection to rule out damp. It also failed to consider why, if there was no damp issue, the resident kept reporting a damp smell. Again, an inspection would have been the appropriate course of action to investigate what might be causing the smell.
It was one month after the stage 2 response was issued, in October 2023, before the landlord attended the property and inspected the damp. It acknowledged in a follow up email to the resident on 17 October 2023 that there was damp in the walls at the entrance to the property, although it said it was not necessarily rising damp. Following this it asked its repairs team to carry out a further inspection of the property and take moisture readings to try and determine the extent and source of the issue. Given the resident had told it in April 2023 that walls were still wet, that it took 6 months before taking appropriate action to investigate amounts to maladministration.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience this maladministration caused her and for her time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The resident recently told us that the landlord carried out damp treatment in the property during 2024. However, she said she is concerned that there is still an underlying issue as there is mould around windows. She told us that she believes the damp and mould issues in the property have affected her son’s health. We have explained to her that it is outside our remit to determine if there is a causal link between the damp and mould issues in the property and her son’s health. We have advised her that if she wished to pursue this further as a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice. We also advised her she should report her ongoing concerns to the landlord. She confirmed that she already has.
Given our maladministration finding, the landlord’s poor record keeping and the resident’s ongoing concerns, we order it to carry out a thorough damp and mould inspection of the property. It should write to the resident and clearly set out its findings. It should provide her with an action plan containing timeframes for any further remedial work required. If the resident is unhappy with its findings or proposed action plan, she may raise a new complaint.

Response to the resident’s concerns about standing water

We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about standing water.
It attended the property in July 2023 and investigated what was causing the water to gather on the raised path at the front of the property. It determined that it was due to the build and design of the path. It did not have enough of a gradient for water to flow towards the gullies when there was heavy rain. This meant that water gathered at the end of the path, but it did not fully obstruct the resident’s access to her property.
The landlord discussed its inspection findings internally. It determined that the cost of altering the path outweighed the benefit. It noted there was a high demand on its repairs service at that time and decided that the works required to improve the path drainage was not a priority. It recognised the resident had health concerns about the water but reasoned that she could manage this by sweeping it away. It explained this to her in its complaint responses and said that it may carry out the works in the future as part of a planned maintenance programme.
This was a reasonable and proportionate approach by the landlord. It investigated the resident’s concerns and considered how they could be resolved. It made its decision not to prioritise the work in the context of its resources which, as a social housing landlord, were limited.
The situation would have been different if the landlord was under a statutory obligation to carry out the work. We would expect landlords to prioritise statutory works and complete them as soon as possible.
The resident suggested in her complaint that the landlord was obliged by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to carry out the work. She referred to section 11 of the Act which required the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property, including drainage, in repair. However, the path did not form part of her property. It was not included in her tenancy agreement. She did not pay a service charge for its maintenance and it was not defined by the tenancy agreement as a communal area. This meant that section 11, which imposed obligations on the landlord as far as the resident’s property was concerned, was not applicable.
In October 2023, which was a month after the stage 2 response was issued, the landlord realised that it did not own the path at the front of the property. It advised the resident of this and explained it believed the path was owned by the local authority. It told the resident it would contact the local authority on her behalf and advise it of her concerns, which it duly did.
We understand that no further action has since been taken by the local authority or landlord in relation to the path. As this is outside the landlord’s control given it does not own the path, we are unable to order that it take specific action in relation to it. We recommend, however, that it writes again to the local authority about this issue given the resident remains concerned about the health implications of the standing water.
The resident may also contact the local authority directly about the path. If she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a complaint through the local authority’s complaints process.

Handling of a shower repair

The resident rang the landlord on 10 July 2023 and reported that her shower was leaking from the base. It was the landlord’s responsibility under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair this.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it classed the repair as an emergency, urgent or non-urgent repair in line with its repairs policy. Given the issue occurred whenever the shower was switched on, as opposed to being an uncontrollable leak, we would not expect it to have been classed as an emergency. However, given the likely inconvenience the leak caused the resident on a daily basis, particularly with 4 people living in the property, we would have expected the landlord to treat it as an urgent repair. Its repairs policy requires it to complete urgent repairs within 21 working days.
Its initial response was prompt. It immediately raised a works order for its contractor to assess the cause of the leak. The contractor informed the landlord on 13 July 2023 that it had done so and that it had ordered replacement parts. The landlord relayed this information to the resident. It proactively updated her on 21 July 2023 to advise that the parts had not yet come in. The resident contacted the landlord for a further update on 1 August 2023. By the time she made her complaint on 17 August 2023, the repair remained outstanding.
The landlord failed to acknowledge in its stage 1 response that it had delayed beyond the timeframe provided by its repairs policy in repairing the shower. The reason for this may have been outside its control due to parts being required. However, it was unreasonable that it did not explain this to the resident in its complaint response and apologise for any inconvenience this caused her.
The contractor attended the property on 7 September 2023 to repair the shower. However, it told the landlord it was unable to complete the repair as it had to order a replacement shower unit. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether this was the same part, or a different part, than what the contractor had previously ordered in July 2023. This is a further example of poor record keeping.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord asked the contractor why the part was taking so long to come in or, if only ordered in September, why it did not order it in July. The landlord should reasonably have done so given the repair was outstanding by 2 months at that stage. It was responsible for managing its contractor’s performance.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise to the resident for its ongoing delay in completing the repair.
The contractor completed the shower repair in late 2023. The exact date is not known from the landlord’s records, which is a further record keeping failure. However, the resident confirmed in an email to it on 6 December 2023 the repair had been completed.
Overall, we find that due to the delay in completing the shower repair, there was service failure by the landlord. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience this caused her.

Response to the resident’s request that it remove a cat flap

The landlord’s records indicate that the resident rang it on 8 March 2023 to advise a cat flap was broken and to ask it to remove it and seal up the gap. It failed to respond to this request.
The cat flap was built into a side panel on the door. The landlord was responsible under the tenancy agreement for keeping in repair doors and doorframes. The cat flap was already there when the resident moved in. In other words, she did not install it so was not responsible for repairing it. She did not move into the property through a mutual exchange so was not responsible for keeping in repair alterations made by the previous resident either. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report that the cat flap was broken.
The landlord’s failure to respond led to the resident spending time and trouble chasing it for a response on 7 July 2023. This did not prompt it to inspect the cat flap to see if it was damaged. It did, however, consider her request that it remove the cat flap. It determined internally that it was her responsibility to do so. There is no evidence it communicated this decision back to her. This meant she spent further time and trouble raising the issue as part of her formal complaint.
Our interpretation of the tenancy agreement is that the landlord should have kept the cat flap in repair given it was built into the door. While there was nothing in the agreement to require it to remove it, it was unreasonable that prior to deciding not to do so in July 2023, it did not first check it was not damaged.
In reaching its decision not to remove the cat flap, the landlord does not appear to have given any weight to the fact the resident did not install it. While it was not obliged to remove it, it would have been reasonable for it to at least consider whether, in the interests of fairness, it should. It was only later, during its stage 2 complaint investigation, that it considered this. It said in an internal email in September 2023 that it was “not sure [it] should have given a new tenant a property with a door with a cat flap to begin with”.
The landlord’s void checklist does not require it to ‘remove cat flaps’ or anything to that effect. Neither does its void standard. It was therefore not a failure that the landlord did not remove it during the void stage. However, its void standard requires it to ensure doors are in reasonable condition, safe and secure. It seems fair to us to extend this to the removal of unnecessary cat flaps upon request from the new tenant, particularly as cat flaps can potentially affect security of the property.
The landlord reasonably confirmed in its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023 that it would remove the cat flap. It completed the job 3 days later.
Overall, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it remove a cat flap. It initially decided it would not remove it, despite not having inspected it to see if it was broken. It failed to communicate this decision to the resident. It took for the resident to raise the issue with it 4 times, before it finally responded to the request in its stage 2 response. While it reasonably reversed its original decision not to remove the cat flap, it failed to acknowledge its poor communications with the resident on the issue up to that point.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble she spent in chasing it for a response to this issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy is aligned with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There were a number of aspects of the Code that the landlord failed to comply with when handling the resident’s complaint. For example, the Code required the landlord to:
1. issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging receipt of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint but then took 11 working days to issue its stage 1 response.
2. address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to address the resident’s health and safety concerns regarding the warm air unit and pipework at stage 1. It partially responded to this at stage 2, addressing her concern about asbestos, but it did not acknowledge or respond to her concern about chicken wire covering pipework in the children’s bedroom.
3. acknowledge where things have gone wrong and put things right. The landlord demonstrated limited introspection in its complaint responses. It failed to acknowledge its delays in responding to the issues raised by the resident throughout 2023 about the heating, damp and mould, shower and cat flap. The only failure it acknowledged was that it had overlooked that repairs to walls and plasterwork remained outstanding. However, it did not offer the resident compensation for this failure. This would have been appropriate in line with both the Code and its compensation policy.
Given this, we find there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. We have not ordered it to pay the resident any compensation for this. Its delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response was minor. Although we have found its complaint investigation into the heating, damp and mould, shower and cat flap was not thorough, we have already ordered it to pay the resident compensation for these substantive complaint issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about standing water.
4. service failure in the landlord’s handling of a shower repair.
5. service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it remove a cat flap.
6. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs to the heating system.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, caused by the maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of a shower repair.
  4. £100 for her time and trouble due to the service failure in its response to her request that it remove a cat flap.
3. write to the resident and advise her if it is still willing to remove the warm air unit and pipework from the property. If it is, it should advise her when it can carry this work out and how long it will take.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a thorough damp and mould inspection of the property. It should write to the resident within 6 weeks of the date of this report and clearly set out its inspection findings. It should provide her with an action plan containing timeframes for any further remedial work required.

Recommendations

If the landlord offers a tenancy sustainment support service, or can provide the resident with any other form of financial support or guidance, we recommend it offers this service to her.
We recommend that the landlord writes to the local authority again to outline the resident’s concerns about standing water. It should ask the local authority whether it proposes to take any action. It should provide the resident with a copy of the local authority’s response once received.
If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord carries out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight reports on:
1. Damp and Mould (October 2021).
2. Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).