Cross Keys Homes Limited (202003275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003275

Cross Keys Homes Limited

25 March 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the following issues:
1. The compensation offered for belongings damaged by damp and mould at her previous property.
2. Duplication of rent resulting in rent arrears in 2019.
3. The additional cleaning and decorating required at her new property prior to her moving in December 2019.
4. Re-using the laminate flooring that was gifted by the landlord whilst she was at her previous property in 2019.
5. The contact arrangements imposed by landlord.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord.
The complaint involves two properties the resident occupied as follows:
1. ‘Flat A’ – tenancy started on 1 August 2019 till 5 January 2020.
2. ‘Flat B’ – tenancy started on 11 December 2019 till present.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy agreement:

The tenancy agreement sets out the following:
1. It is your responsibility to provide information for your claim for Housing Benefit, Universal Credit, or other state assistance to be processed, if you do not or you delay and you lose your entitlement for that period, you will have to pay the rent in full, due for that period.
2. The keys to your home must be returned to us at our service address…on or before the last day of the tenancy. Where keys are not returned, you will still be liable for rent and service charges until such time as the keys are received by us.
3. Failure to return the keys will see the tenant charged rent until such time as the keys are returned.
4. Tenants are responsible for all flooring in the property.

Moving in Standard and Voids Repairs:

This sets out the minimum standard a property needs to meet before a tenant takes up a tenancy. Its states that:
1. ‘Each property will…meet the Governments’ Decent Homes Standard; meaning it is in a reasonable state of repair, meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing, has reasonably modern facilities and services, and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort’.
2. Be in good decorative order as outlined in [clause] 5.19.
It sets out the ‘Moving in minimum standard’ as being, clean and tidy in accordance with the finished level of cleanliness definition…Which sets out things like, all rubbish removed, kitchen units cleaned inside, sanitary ware cleaned, windows cleaned inside and out.
There is no requirement for the landlord to install any flooring (e.g. carpet or laminate) – this is the tenant’s responsibility to install.

Unreasonable behaviour policy and procedure:

This states that ‘We retain the right, in circumstances where a customer’s actions or behaviour is unacceptable, to restrict contact with us…It considers that the following types of behaviour are unreasonable:
1. Verbal abuse in person, over the telephone or in writing.
In circumstances of verbal abuse/ aggression, if it is an isolated incident, line managers should consider alternative action to restricting contact (reviewed on a case-by-case basis). Action that can be taken includes:
1. Visit to the customer to discuss the incident and inform them what [the landlord] expects from them in terms of acceptable conduct (followed up in writing).
2. A warning letter to the customer regarding their conduct.
3. In circumstances where there are further incidents, the employee and line manager should consider restricting contact.
Customers identified as a risk to staff are monitored and reviewed by the senior neighbourhood manager. If there is no ongoing risk, they will investigate whether restricted contact / two person visits can be discontinued, to ensure we offer the best service we can to that customer.

Client Risk Policy and Procedure:

With regards to the issue of two-person visits, this states that the landlord is allowed to mark this against a tenant if there has been an incident of ‘Unacceptable verbal abuse, either in person, over the telephone…’
The landlord needs to write to the tenant to advise them that their behaviour is unacceptable.
The Neighbourhood Delivery Team Leader will monitor those with a two person visit icon…to review the appropriateness of tenants being flagged on at least an annual basis.

Summary of events

The resident signed the tenancy for Flat A on 1 August 2019 but did not move into the property until 31 August 2019. The delay in moving in was due to a problem with the floor in one of the rooms. It is understood that the landlord gifted the resident laminate flooring in recognition of the delay and the problem with the floor.
The resident reported mould in the property on 25 September 2019. As it was a new-build property and still under the defect period, the landlord notified the developer. Whilst waiting for the developer to investigate, the landlord carried out its own inspection on 30 October 2019 and sent a report to the developer. This report confirmed that mould was found in the bedroom bottom corner external wall which has spread onto the bed, floor, across the wall and back and side of wardrobe. The resident also mentioned mould in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord concluded that further investigative works were needed, particularly to the bedroom corner and bathroom pipework boxing to assess where this issue has come from. It was also noted that the resident had raised health concerns and was seeking a managed transfer to a new property. She was also seeking compensation for mould-damaged belongings.
After further discussions with the developer, the landlord and the resident’s MP, it was concluded that there were no building defects evident and more intrusive investigations were required (to be done by the developer) to establish the cause of the mould and whether or not it related to the structure of the property. The landlord’s records refer to the resident not allowing the developer access and also not agreeing to temporarily move out to enable the investigative works.
The resident provided a GP letter saying she had eczema and asthma which was triggered by mould and that her mental health was being affected by the living conditions. The letter stated that the works could not be carried out whilst she was living there as having strangers in home caused her anxiety.
The landlord’s records show that on 11 November 2019 it agreed to allow the resident a managed transfer to a new property (‘Flat B’) which was available from next month.
On 13 November 2019 the landlord’s records noted that the resident ‘called and was aggressive throughout the call. She told me that I am a really horrible person and that I am rude. She added that I am a stupid woman and before I could respond, she hung up’. The landlord wrote to the resident the next day and said that it did not tolerate rude and abusive behaviour towards its employees and following this incident it had decided to restrict her contact with the landlord (for any non-emergency issue) to email and letter.
The resident requested a meeting to discuss various issues about the next steps, including compensation for belongings damaged by mould. In response to the request, the landlord wrote to her MP explaining its position and suggested that it might be better to communication to be through the resident’s support worker. The resident agreed with this suggestion.
The landlord spoke to the support worker on 22 November 2019 where the issue of the damaged belongings was discussed. It was agreed that the support worker will make a list of the damaged items together with costs for the landlord to review.
On 26 November 2019 the support worker emailed the landlord with details of all the damaged items. The resident was claiming a total of £4889 for a damaged wardrobe, chest of drawers, bed, bedding, and clothes. The landlord accepted this list and agreed to pay the resident £4889 on 3 December 2019.
The internal correspondence from the landlord shows that on 4 December 2019 Flat B was being readied for the resident and that it had ‘painted every wall and ceiling throughout the flat 100% and then cleaned it’.
On 5 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that its offer to pay £4889 was in full and final settlement of this issue. It asked the resident to confirm her agreement that this was in full and final settlement of the matter. The subsequent email exchange between the landlord and the resident confirmed that the resident accepted £4889 in full and final settlement for the damaged items.
The resident then emailed the landlord about Flat B and said that she could not accept the tenancy until further cleaning and decorating had been done, including:
1. disposing of all carpets (which she says smelt of nicotine),
2. cleaning windows inside and out as they were nicotine stained,
3. full decoration throughout including the ceilings and skirting board,
4. the doors to be cleaned due to nicotine smell,
5. cupboard to be sanded down and painted.
The landlord’s internal emails showed that its contractors would go back on Monday and re-do anything that’s come back through and also gloss all the woodwork throughout. The landlord then wrote to the resident saying that it was working through her request for additional cleaning and decorating. The landlord’s records show that additional painting and making good was to be carried out.
The resident and the support worker inspected the property on 11 December 2019 and accepted the tenancy on this date. On 18 December 2019 the support worker emailed the landlord as the resident was unhappy that the flat had not been cleaned thoroughly and the paintwork was still patchy. The landlord responded on 23 December 2019 and said that all the void works had been completed. It had reviewed the resident’s photos of the condition of the property and it confirmed that further painting had been carried out to all the surfaces and an additional clean and that the property met its moving in standard. It said it was not required to carry out a ‘deep clean’ as requested by the resident.
The resident moved into Flat B on 31 December 2019. On 2 January 2020 the support worker emailed the landlord saying that the cleaning and decorating was of a poor standard and not as promised at the sign-up meeting, and the carpet had not been removed. The landlord responded reiterating its stance that it was satisfied that the property met its moving in standard. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord did however agree to remove the carpet.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2020 to confirm that, in addition to the restricted telephone contact (due to ‘your conduct over the telephone towards a number of employees’) it would now also insist that two employees will attend if a visit is required.
On 28 January 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord with details of the issues the resident was still unhappy about, which included:
1. Duplication of rent – she had to pay rent at her old property and also at the new property.
2. Gifted flooring at Flat A – the resident was gifted laminate flooring by the landlord in Flat A in August 2019. She had requested that this laminate flooring be removed from Flat A and be fitted in Flat B after the carpet had been removed from Flat B. As the landlord had declined to do this, the resident had to pay approximately £1200 to have new laminate flooring fitted in Flat B to replace the removed carpet.
3. Compensation at Flat A – the resident discovered after accepting the compensation of £4889 that there was another wardrobe full of damaged clothes. She wanted the landlord to include this within its compensation and she requested an additional £1000 compensation for this.
4. Cleaning and decorating of Flat B – the resident was unhappy that she had been promised by the housing officer that further cleaning and decorating would be done. But then a manager overruled her and did not authorise any further cleaning or decorating. The resident had to therefore carry out the cleaning and decorating herself.
The landlord responded to the MP on 30 January 2020:
1. Duplication of rent – it said it had made it clear that the resident was liable for both rents until she returned the keys.
2. Compensation for Flat A – the resident had accepted the offer of £4889 in full and final settlement of this matter.
3. Gifted flooring – it had declined to lift and re-lay the laminate flooring but had told the resident that she may do this herself if she wished to take the flooring with her.
4. Void works – it said it had carried out additional cleaning and painting and it was satisfied that the property met its moving in standard.
5. Contact arrangements – it reiterated the contact restrictions and the two-person visit rule and said this would continue.
On 19 February 2020 the resident submitted a complaint form. This included details of the following complaint issues:
1. Damp and mould in the previous property (Flat A). Items in the second wardrobe to be taken into account in Flat A compensation.
2. Unhappy with the standard of the new property (Flat B).
3. Duplication of rent.
4. Compensation for flooring she had to lay at Flat B.
5. Removing the contact restriction and the need for 2 people to attend for any visits.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 27 February 2020:
1. It gave a history of the mould issue at Flat A and what had led to the managed transfer to Flat B. It said that the developers had now carried out a thorough investigation and survey of the property to ascertain the underlying reasons for the mould and they were satisfied that there were no structural problems with the property. As such, it said that the mould was due to other issues, such as inadequate heating and ventilation and other ‘lifestyle’ issues.
2. It explained that it had agreed to remove the carpet in Flat B but it would not re-fit the gifted laminate from Flat A, but she could remove the laminate flooring and re-lay it herself if she wanted to.
3. It reiterated that it had carried out the required level of cleaning and painting at Flat B and that the property met its moving in standard, in line with the relevant policy and procedure.
4. As for any duplication of rent, it said that the resident was advised at sign-up that she would be responsible for the rent at both properties until such time as the old property was returned with vacant possession. It said that the support worker had also confirmed to the landlord that she had explained this to the resident. As such, it was reasonable for the resident to pay the outstanding rent balance.
5. It maintained the contact restrictions due to the history of the resident’s behaviour towards the landlord’s employees.
6. In respect of the additional compensation, it was not prepared to consider this further given that it had made, in its own words, a very generous offer’ of £4889 which had been accepted in full and final settlement. Especially, given that it was now confirmed that the landlord was not liable for the mould damage.
The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 10 March 2020. She maintained that she had no choice but to accept a move to Flat B due to the fact that she could not stay in Flat A due to her health condition(s). She disputed the landlord’s assertion that the mould was due to lifestyle issues. She felt that the decision not to re-lay the laminate flooring in Flat B was unfair as, due to her medical conditions, she would not be able to remove and re-fit the flooring herself. She reiterated that she was told at sign-up that additional cleaning works would be carried out and they weren’t done. She was of the view that the duplication of rent was unfair, and the contact restriction and two-person rule was causing her anxiety. As for the additional compensation, she said she felt she had to accept this as this was the final offer.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord offered the resident a final payment of £750 in an effort to conclude matters once and for all. The resident rejected this offer and the landlord withdraw its offer after the resident had rejected it the same day.
The landlord’s records show that Flat A was inspected again on 13 March 2020. The report found no evidence to substantiate a construction defect. The records indicate that the mould found in the property was most likely attributable to excess moisture caused by a direct consequence of the tenant’s lifestyle.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 17 March 2020:
1. Mould at Flat A – It maintained that its offer of nearly £5000 for damaged belongings and the managed transfer was ‘very generous’ given the evidence showed that the landlord was not responsible for the mould. It said that this showed it was trying to resolve the matter positively.
2. Rent duplication – It stated that it had spoken with the resident several times about the rent arrears and that she would be responsible for two lots of rent until she relinquished one of the properties. It offered the resident £750 compensation on 13 March 2020 to resolve the complaint, which would have cleared her arrears, but the resident refused this offer. It has no further offer to make in this regard.
3. Contact restriction – It stated that it would not be changing its decision with regards to the two-person visit arrangements. It said it believed that this was appropriate based on the history of the resident’s contact with the landlord and her recent behaviour towards its staff.
4. The letter gave the resident the right to request a final escalation of the complaint if she had any new evidence that had not been previously considered or investigated.
The resident escalated the complaint again on 24 and 27 March. The landlord responded on 30 March 2020 and rejected the escalation request. It agreed to review the rent arrears based upon when the resident had returned the key for Flat A and it confirmed that the rent arrears were correctly calculated. It also noted that there was an issue with the information held by the DWP about the resident’s Universal Credit claim, which was causing some periodic arrears. It asked her to contact the DWP and/or its own Income Management team who can assist her with this.
With regards to the remaining aspects of the complaint, as there was no new evidence, it maintained that it had done ‘its very best’ to meet the resident’s demands and requests. As such, this was its final response on the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s various concerns was in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it has with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issues, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.

The compensation offered for belongings damaged by mould at Flat A

It is noted that on 5 December 2019 the landlord paid the resident compensation of £4889 in respect of furniture and belongings that she said had been damaged by mould. This payment included £1000 for clothes that had been damaged by the mould found within a wardrobe. The resident has said that several weeks after accepting the landlord’s offer of compensation, she discovered another wardrobe full of clothes that had become infested with mould as she was packing to leave for Flat B. She requested that the landlord make a further payment of £1000 as compensation for these clothes.
Looking at the available evidence, the landlord requested the resident to provide details of all the damaged items for its consideration. The list submitted by the support worker on behalf of the resident listed all the damaged items and the amount the resident was seeking for various items (e.g. wardrobe £200, bed £580, mattress £1200, bedding £1000 and clothes £1000). This list was accepted by the landlord at face value and it swiftly agreed the compensation amount that the resident had requested. It did not question the resident’s list or the costs attributed to each item, and nor did it ask the resident to provide any proof for the requested costs. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted more than reasonably in accepting the resident’s compensation request at face value and without any substantiation or investigation.
Furthermore, given that the investigation of the cause of the mould was still being looked at, the landlord did not have to agree any compensation at that point, and it was within its rights to consider the matter of compensation pending the outcome of the investigations first. However, it chose not to do so, and the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord that, this was a generous offer and it was a genuine attempt to assist the resident and resolve the dispute.
The issue then turns on whether or not the landlord needs to consider the resident’s further request for an additional sum of £1000 for damaged clothes that were discovered later on. From the information presently available, there is no evidence to show that the second lot of damaged clothes was brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable time. It is noted that it was not mentioned in any correspondence until 28 January 2020, some seven weeks after the resident had accepted a full and final settlement offer. But even so, putting that to one side, the landlord has demonstrated that the cause of the damage to the clothes – mould – was not due to any structural issues with the property that fell under its responsibility to repair. As such, the landlord is not being unreasonable in not making any further payments for the additional damaged clothes.
If the resident believes that the landlord is responsible for reimbursing and/or compensating her for the additional damaged clothes, she will need to seek her own independent legal advice about pursuing a claim against the landlord. The Ombudsman is not in a position to determine whether or not the landlord has acted negligently, and as such, matters of legal liability are more appropriate for the legal process and not the Ombudsman.

Duplication of rent

The resident has said that it is unfair that she had to pay rent at her old property and the new property at the same time, when she could not move into the new property as it was not ready to be lived in.
The tenancy agreement makes it clear that the rent is payable in advance from the date the tenancy starts. In this case, the resident had signed the tenancy for one property, but had not relinquished the tenancy for the previous property. As such, she was required to pay rent on both properties at the same time. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is made clear in the terms of the tenancy agreement and it was also made clear to the resident and the support worker. For instance, the evidence provided by the landlord shows that the support worker had ‘confirmed that she too had told [the resident] she was responsible for the rent on both accounts so she will discuss this with her’.
With regards to the reasons the resident did not move into Flat B the Ombudsman understands that she was not happy with the condition of the cleaning and decorating that had been done. The resident chose not to move into Flat B and chose to remain in Flat A instead for several weeks after she had signed the new tenancy. Whilst the resident has said that she did not move in due to her health conditions, there is no evidence to suggest that Flat B was uninhabitable, and the standard of the décor and/or cleaning would not have precluded the resident from occupying the property.
The resident has her reasons for not wishing to move in at the start of the tenancy, but the landlord has attempted to help the resident by carrying out the extra cleaning and decorating works at Flat B. In light of the available evidence, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has acted unreasonably or inappropriately in this instance, and it is not required to do anything further in respect of the rent arrears complained about. It has also been noted that the landlord has shown that some of the rent arrears are due to other factors the landlord is not responsible for e.g. the resident has not provided the DWP with the correct information for her Universal Credit claim. It has also demonstrated that it has tried to help the resident work through these issues with her.

Additional cleaning and decorating at Flat B

The resident has said that when she viewed Flat B before signing the tenancy, she was advised by the officer that additional cleaning and redecorating works would be carried out. She says that she accepted the tenancy on this assurance. However, the landlord later reneged on this when a senior manager overruled the officer and decided that no further cleaning or decorating was necessary in order to meet the landlord’s moving in standard.
The landlord has a policy which sets out the minimum standards a property needs to meet for it to be considered ready to be occupied by a tenant. This includes a level of cleaning within the property. The sign-up checklist that was completed when accepting Flat B shows that the resident was specifically unhappy with issues such as, the paintwork was patchy in places, and the colour of the grouting and tiles around the cooker were dirty. The available evidence shows that the landlord did initially agree that some additional cleaning and decorating would be carried out. As far as can be ascertained from the evidence, additional works were indeed carried out e.g. carpet was removed and additional painting of the woodwork and a further clean was carried out. However, the resident remained unhappy with the finished level of cleaning and decorating.
While the resident’s disappointment with the general cleanliness of the property and the quality of the painting are duly noted, this would not necessarily mean that the property could not be occupied by the resident. The evidence shows that a void survey was carried out and works were completed to ensure that the property met the landlord’s moving in standards. There is nothing to suggest that the additional works requested by the resident were necessary to bring the property up to the required moving in standard. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the steps taken by the landlord to address this complaint issue were both reasonable and proportionate.

Gifted laminate flooring

The Ombudsman understands that in August 2019 the landlord had gifted the resident new laminate flooring at Flat A in recognition of the problems she had experienced with the floor which had required further work to remedy. When the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to remove the carpet in Flat B in December 2019, the resident also requested the landlord lift the laminate flooring at Flat A and re-fit it for her in Flat B. This request was declined as Flat B did not require flooring to meet the moving in standard. However, since the laminate flooring had been gifted to her, she was advised that she could take it with her to Flat B if she wished but the lifting and re-fitting costs would have to be met by the resident.
The landlord is not required to install laminate flooring at Flat B. The terms of the tenancy agreement and the moving in standards confirm that the landlord is not responsible for providing any flooring at Flat B. Therefore, such costs are correctly the responsibility of the resident.
The fact that the landlord had gifted the resident new laminate flooring in Flat A does not mean that it should be required to lift this from Flat A and re-fit it for her in Flat B. The resident has said that (a) this laminate flooring was gifted to her personally (and not gifted to the property), and (b) the landlord had previously agreed in Flat A that in order to fix the underlying issue with the floor, it would remove the laminate and re-fit it for her once the floor in Flat A had been rectified. However, as she was offered a new property this offer never came to fruition, and as such, the resident says that if the landlord was agreeable to meeting the cost of lifting and re-laying the laminate in Flat A, it was only fair that it re-fit it for her in Flat B to replace the old carpet that had been removed.
The landlord has confirmed that the laminate flooring was indeed gifted to the resident. Therefore, it had advised the resident that she could take up the laminate flooring from Flat A when she leaves, which is reasonable. The landlord is not obliged to pay for the laminate flooring to be removed from Flat A or for it to be re-fitted at Flat B because the tenancy sets out clearly that flooring is the tenant’s responsibility. The resident has said that she could not physically do this herself, but this does not establish any obligation upon the landlord to meet the cost of this. The landlord has acted appropriately by considering the resident’s request, and its decision to decline the request is reasonable.

Contact arrangements

The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision to restrict her contact with it to once a week and that any visits to the property must be done by two contractors or staff members. The resident has said that this is unnecessary and unfair and is causing her anxiety. She says that the landlord is not recognising the impact this is having on her mental health. It is noted that the landlord’s ‘Unreasonable behaviour policy’ sets out the circumstances where a contact arrangement is deemed appropriate. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted appropriately and has demonstrated why a contact arrangement was deemed necessary.
The landlord’s reasoning and rationale for the restricted contact and the two-person visits is clearly set out. It is also noted that the landlord has taken this decision not just based upon a reaction to an isolated incident but looking at the overall communications between the resident and its staff.
It is acknowledged that the resident had concerns about her living conditions in Flat A, but it cannot be overlooked that the landlord has evidenced that the resident’s behaviour towards its staff was inappropriate and deemed it to be verbal abuse. In the circumstances, its policy and procedure allow it to step in and protect the wellbeing of its staff by limiting the type and/or duration of the contact from the resident. The resident may well feel angry and frustrated with the landlord, but this cannot excuse incidents of verbal abuse, and the landlord is acting appropriately by considering the measures available to it under its unreasonable behaviour policy.
The landlord has tried to work with the resident and has said it is happy to continue to speak to the support worker to progress matters. This is a pragmatic and sensible approach and allows the resident to still have effective lines of communication with the landlord when necessary.
Looking at this issue overall, the landlord has explained its decision and rationale for implementing the contact restrictions and this is in accordance with its policy and procedure.
However, the policy also states that these types of contact restrictions ought to be monitored by senior management and be reviewed annually. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the arrangement had been formally reviewed since it was introduced in November 2019. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord carry out a formal review of the contact arrangements and inform the resident of the outcome of the review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the compensation for the damaged clothes at Flat A.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the duplication of rent issue.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the additional cleaning and decorating at Flat B.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the gifted laminate flooring issue.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the contact arrangements.

Reasons

Looking at the complaint overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated that, with regards to all the complaint issues, its responses were reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted appropriately by clearly explaining its position on each complaint and there is nothing to suggest that it has acted unfairly in any way. The resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, as is her request for additional compensation, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s actions during its handling of the various issues and in its complaint investigation, were reasonable and no further action is necessary to resolve the complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carry out a formal review of the contact arrangements and informs the resident of the outcome of the review.