Housing For Women (202015827)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015827

Housing For Women

30 June 2022

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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of plumbing repairs and a leak into her hallway;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant whose tenancy agreement began on 12 March 2012 and describes the property as a two-bedroom flat. The landlord has advised that the property is on the first floor of a purpose-built block.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including internal walls, floors and ceilings and to keep in good repair and proper working order installations for heating and sanitation, including baths, toilets and heating installations.
The landlord has a repairs maintenance policy that shows that ‘repair orders are prioritised according to the urgency and nature of the work’ with emergency repairs made safe within 24 hours. The landlord has a repairs section on its website that shows that it will complete ‘urgent’ repairs within five working days and ‘routine’ repairs within 20 working days.
The repairs maintenance policy also:
1. gives examples of emergency repairs such as a total loss of hot or cold water and a toilet that does not flush
2. adds that it will confirm appointments with the resident at a time that suits them
3. shows that the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of their home and maintaining the decorations in their home.
During the period covered by this complaint, the landlord had a three-stage complaints process with responses required within 10-15 working days (at stages one and two) followed by a complaint panel hearing within 20 working days (at stage three).
The landlord now has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process that shows that the resident can opt for an ‘executive director’ or ‘complaint panel’ route at the final stage of the complaints process. The policy sets out that it ‘will learn from the issues that arise and work to improve and shape our services for our residents and improve our internal processes’.
The landlord has a compensation and reimbursement policy that allows for it to make financial awards for delays in repairs and shows it can pay a maximum of £1500 for a ‘serious or prolonged’ failure. It adds that it ‘will not compensate residents for damage caused to personal possessions that are not covered by the residents’ contents insurance policy’.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint from the resident (under case reference 201508051) which was determined on 24 May 2016. It found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of some repairs to the property, including flooring.
The landlord and resident have recently engaged in making offers and counter-offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Laws; this was further to a disrepair claim which was submitted by the resident after her complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman is only able to investigate matters that have been considered through a landlord’s complaints process and does not review historic investigations. This investigation will therefore not assess the flooring issue that was already determined under a previous case. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to assess the landlord’s offers made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Laws. Nevertheless, these events may be referred to below for context.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident made a report of no hot water and a leak from the boiler on 9 November 2020. It noted on 12 November 2020 that its contractor attended to the boiler leak but that a follow-on job was needed for a hot water tap.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 22 December 2020, reporting a leak coming through the hallway ceiling. The landlord replied the same day to advise that it could attend the following morning given it was ‘only raising emergency orders due to new government guidelines as we are now in tier 4’.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 December 2020. She asked for the results of an unannounced inspection of 22 December 2020 and queried why it had not resolved the leak that was affecting several homes.
The resident submitted a complaint on 1 January 2021 on the grounds that:
1. the landlord had attended her property on 22 December 2020 and told her the leak was coming from the third floor but it had not resolved it
2. there had been a separate leak affecting her nextdoor neighbours over several months and the unresolved leaks were severely impacting them and their properties with damage to her ceiling, walls, flooring, storage cupboard and items within the cupboard
3. the landlord had not made any attempts to make safe or install a dehumidifier
4. her and her neighbour’s properties had already smelt of damp since 2018 due to an unresolved leak from her neighbour’s bathroom and there was a silverfish infestation due to this
5. she referred to a historic issue with defective flooring, the landlord’s rent arrears actions and behaviour she described as bullying and disrespectful.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement email to the resident on 4 January 2021, advising it would respond within 10-15 days.
The resident’s MP chased a response from the landlord on 7 January 2021, advising that there were two leaks affecting the resident’s property.
The resident chased a response on 28 January 2021, noting that there had been no action in response to the leak or complaint except for a dehumidifier dropped off at her neighbour’s property.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2021, reporting that there was mould growth due to the ongoing leak and that there was a problem with the hot water supply too.
The landlord raised repair orders on 2 and 8 February 2021 due to reports from the resident that she could not use the bath as the hot water quickly ran cold.
The landlord raised repair orders on 11-12 February 2021 to trace and remedy a possible faulty temperature reducing valve behind the bath panel and a heating interface unit (HIU) leak. The jobs were recorded as complete on 15 February 2021. It also closed an order on 15 February 2021 to deliver a dehumidifier.
The landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s MP on 23 February 2021, advising that a leak had been traced to a cylinder in the flat above the resident’s property, that this was resolved on 16 February 2021 and that remedial works would be arranged.
The resident wrote to this Service on 10 March 2021. She provided photographs taken in January 2021 showing a large, discoloured section of ceiling with damage and black mould spotting to the walls and she advised that:
1. the landlord had still not responded to her complaint
2. a contractor had attended in November 2020 to remedy a leak from her boiler and she had made them aware of an issue with her bath hot water tap and three operatives had since looked at it but none had remedied it
3. the shower also ran out of hot water occasionally and sometimes produced burning hot water when the toilet flushed itself without being used
4. a contractor attended on 15 February 2021 to drop off a dehumidifier (for the leak) and asked to check the issue with the hot water tap of her bath (that she said ran cold after five minutes)
5. the landlord contacted her on 17 February 2021 and gave her less than 24 hours’ notice of its intention to attend despite having previously been asked to give more notice as a reasonable adjustment
6. nobody attended on 18 February 2021 but an operative did arrive earlier than she requested on 19 February 2021 and only took a short look at her bath hot water tap
7. she had reported on 22 February 2021 that there was no hot water and she could not take a bath
8. the landlord responded to her MP, advising it had resolved a leak from an upstairs neighbour’s cylinder, on 16 February 2021 but had not explained why it had failed to answer her complaint and had not resolved the damage caused to her property
9. there had been bullying and discriminatory behaviour against her by the landlord and it consistently overlooked important issues.
The landlord raised a repair order on 27 April 2021 to carry out stain blocking to the hallway ceiling. Its contractor advised on 12 May 2021 that it had repaired walls and a ceiling and it recorded the job as complete on 21 May 2021.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation to the landlord on 9 May 2021 on the grounds that:
1. it had failed to follow its complaints process
2. it delayed by two months in resolving a leak from above (she said this was on 19 February 2021) and had still not completed any remedial works up to that point
3. it had delayed since early November 2020 in resolving a hot water issue
4. it had delayed by two years in remedying other leaks and treating a resulting silverfish issue
5. the MP response of 23 February 2021 contained inaccurate information
6. she was now aware that her toilet cistern should not be automatically filling every 15-20 minutes
7. an operative had attended on 30 April 2021 to paint the hallway but plaster repairs and mould treatment were first necessary.
The landlord made a request on 28 May 2021 for its contractor to send a senior plumber to review the bathroom problems with bath hot water running cold, scalding hot water from the shower and the toilet cistern consistently re-filling.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident dated 27 May 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had not dealt with the original complaint appropriately for which it apologised and said the team had been spoken to
2. although it attended to stop the leak from a neighbouring flat within 24 hours, it had delayed until May 2021 in completing the follow-on works
3. it apologised for the delay in it remedying the hot water issue which it said was due to it closing the job in error after contractors attended on 10 February 2021
4. it did not offer silverfish treatment as part of its pest control duties but it understood that the delay with the leak would likely have attracted silverfish to the property
5. it awarded £142 compensation for inconvenience caused by its ‘breakdown in process and poor performance from contractors in diagnosing the technical issue and proposing the correct solution’.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during 28 May 2021 to 1 June 2021 with a view to arranging an appointment for the hot water and toilet issue to be dealt with on 3 June 2021.
The resident submitted a further complaint escalation on 31 May 2021 on the grounds that:
1. the landlord had not responded to the stage one complaint or acknowledged the stage two complaint
2. there were inaccuracies in the stage two response and the second part of it seemed to be for someone else’s attention
3. the leak from above was not contained within 24 hours
4. the ceiling was plastered on 12 May 2021 and the hallway painted on 19 May 2021 but the mould had not been treated so this would not rectify the problem
5. she had not been able to run a bath for more than 144 days
6. failure to deal with numerous leaks over several years had caused flooring damage and silverfish infestation so her bedroom was no longer usable
7. the £142 compensation offer was shocking and unacceptable.
The landlord recorded that the contractor had fitted a new filling valve to the toilet on 3 June 2021 and established that a new temperature pressure relief valve (TPRV) was needed to stop the loss of hot water. It raised a repair order on 7 June 2021 to investigate the issue with the system and faulty hot water tap, recommending renewal of bath thermostatic mixer taps.
The landlord advised the resident on 9-11 June 2021 that it was in the process of organising a complaint panel meeting and provided further details about how the meeting would function.
The landlord asked its contractor on 28 June 2021 to attend the property to fit a new TPRV to stop the loss of hot water. The contractor replied on 30 June 2021, explaining it had attended that day but not fitted the TPRV as the existing part was not found to be faulty. It added that the hot water cylinder was delivering the required hot water at an appropriate pressure and it had advised the resident accordingly. It noted there was a fault with the toilet dual flush valve.
The resident appointed a health and safety advisor who wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021. He said he had diagnosed that the toilet problem was due to a fault to the ‘syphon and float value’, the hot water issue was due to the immersion heater not working and the shower was scalding hot due to the toilet flushing problem.
The landlord’s contractor informed the landlord on 6 July 2021 that it had fitted a new filling valve to stop the toilet overflowing and it had identified a new TPRV was needed to stop the loss of hot water.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it made an appointment to renew the bath thermostatic taps and renew any faulty toilet cistern parts on 8 July 2021.
A complaint panel meeting was held on 13 July 2021 and the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2021 to advise it would ‘complete a full condition report and a mitigation plan’. It also advised her on 14 July 2021 of outcomes to a previous property inspection on 30 June 2021 that it said showed that:
1. no fault was found with the heat interface unit (HIU) or controls except that the temperature had been set too low (to 45 degrees)
2. the problem with the shower being scalding hot would be resolved once the toilet issue was fixed
3. the dual flush valve to the toilet was at fault and needed replacement
4. no fault was found with the TPRV and the hot water thermostat had been turned back up to 60 degrees.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2021 – it thanked her for allowing access the week before for contractors to look at the block heating system and requested access for a full inspection to consider other issues.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2021. She queried why the heating system had been checked and said that she could offer access that week.
The landlord replied to the resident on 22 July 2021 – it apologised for the lack of advanced notification for the heating check visit, advised that this was part of its planned preventative maintenance programme and said it understood that the outstanding works relating to her complaint were for a new flush valve and bath mixer tap. The resident and landlord exchanged further emails to arrange an appointment for 28 July 2021.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 July 2021, concluding that:
1. it apologised for the poor service the resident received
2. there were extended delays in it resolving the leak remedial works and hot water issue and there had been an apology for delays, disruption and the failure to respond to the stage one complaint
3. it would take an ‘MOT approach’ and organise a visit to pick up all the outstanding issues, including silverfish (which it would treat as a gesture of goodwill)
4. the poor service had not been deliberate
5. it offered £1500 compensation for the combined impact of ‘poor service, delays and disruption and inconvenience over the 30-week period’
6. it would consider additional compensation for ‘out of pocket’ expenses such as additional electricity usage for the dehumidifier (£87 at £1 per day), additional fuel costs for kettle boiling (£60.75 for 10 kettle boils per day) and items damaged by the leak (for which it asked whether a contents insurance claim had been made).

Summary of events after landlord complaints process

The resident chased the landlord on 7 August 2021 for the outcome of the 28 July 2021 inspection, noting disappointment that it had not been a full property ‘MOT’ as was promised.
The landlord replied to the resident on 18 August 2021 – it said it would programme in a repair to the flush valve and provide a new bath mixer tap that was more user-friendly for her. It reiterated advice about the correct temperature she should set the cylinder thermostat to and offered to complete repairs to the valve and bath tap the following week (when it could also check water bubbling to the wall). It also mentioned that it would investigate for further leaks that could be causing silverfish.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2021. She disputed some of the landlord’s comments about the inspection and raised concerns that:
1. the bath tap was faulty for any person and only produced boiling hot water (and no cold water) so baths and showers were not possible (unless they used buckets of cold water)
2. the hot water supply still regularly ran out and the advice about the cylinder temperature was inaccurate
3. the toilet still automatically refilled
4. the landlord had previously taken photographs of the water bubbling and mould damage following the leak from above
5. the repair dates offering for the following week were fine but she asked for operatives to attend after 1pm.
The resident provided this Service with a chronology of events on 6 September 2021 and advised that:
1. the contractors attempted a toilet repair on 3 June 2021 that was unsuccessful and had incorrectly diagnosed the hot water fault (failing to investigate possible limescale build up)
2. an operative attended on 30 June 2021 to fit repair a valve but this was a misdiagnosis of the hot water issue as it did not resolve the problem and the operative had turned up the thermostat without being able to see what temperature it was at, leaving her with scalding hot water that ran out after five minutes
3. an operative attended on 8 July 2021 to replace the bath taps but he admitted that this would not resolve the hot water running out and he was intimidating and rude
4. a member of landlord staff had shouted at her during an event on 12 July 2021 and the panel meeting of 13 July 2021 was flawed as the landlord had no repairs evidence
5. an unannounced visit on 15 July 2021 had allowed the landlord to take various photographs of the problems in the property but the new bath tap had jammed a couple of days later, meaning they could not run a bath
6. the toilet was still faulty, the hot water issue was unresolved and the silverfish infestation had been ignored.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2021 to offer a full ‘MOT’ inspection of the property. The resident replied on the same day, explaining there had already been visits on 15 July 2021 and 26 July 2021 and the repairs promised for late August 2021 had not been done. She asked questions about who would be conducting works and why certain people had been copied into the landlord’s email.
The landlord advised the resident on 10 September 2021 that the late August repairs had not been booked in because the resident had not confirmed them and that it wished to complete them and a room-by-room property inspection. The resident replied the same day, advising she had confirmed the late August 2021 dates were fine and asking for answers to her questions the day before.
The resident wrote to this Service on 21 October 2021, expressing continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. the landlord’s final complaint response had relied upon inaccurate information and not covered all areas of concern
2. there were still bubbles and mould to the walls following the leak and damage to flooring had been ignored
3. the hot water supply problem remained and all the landlord had done was to fit a bath tap that caused water to be scalding hot
4. the toilet cistern automatically filling had not been resolved
5. no silverfish treatment had been done
6. the promised ‘MOT’ inspections had been flawed and there had been no inspection report offered to her
7. the level of compensation was insufficient, particularly given the repairs were still outstanding and it had not considered her increased water costs.
The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident’s solicitor in November 2021, acknowledging receipt of a disrepair claim dated 26 October 2021. It subsequently advised there had been two inspection reports as part of this process – in December 2021 and February 2022 – to consider matters included in the claim. Some of these matters had been part of the complaints process as follows:
1. water bubbles and black mould plus flooring damage to the hallway
2. silverfish
3. limited hot water and scalding water
4. toilet re-filling every 20 minutes.

The solicitor commented that the February 2022 inspection had established an adequate supply of hot water but that the bath tap was defective. It added that the landlord denied disrepair on the grounds that the hot water cylinder thermostat had been set too low. It offered to settle the full claim with an offer of £1800 compensation and completion of a works schedule within eight weeks.

The landlord’s solicitor issued a revised Part 36 offer to the resident’s solicitor in late March 2022 that included terms to complete a schedule of repairs within eight weeks, pay compensation and for the resident to withdraw all complaints (including that being considered by this Service).
The landlord advised this Service in March 2022 that the parties were seeking to settle the claim and updated this Service more recently to confirm that the works being proposed through the Part 36 offer include those that remained outstanding at the final stage of its complaints process.
The landlord’s solicitor made a further Part 36 offer to the resident’s solicitor on 20 April 2022, the resident’s solicitor made a counter offer on 6 May 2022 and the landlord’s solicitor made another offer on 30 May 2022. The latest offer confirmed that works included replacement of the HIU thermostat, repairs of leaking pipework in the HIU cupboard and from the hot water cylinder, re-plastering and making good of hallway decorations and a silverfish eradication programme. It also proposed to award £15,000 compensation and there was no condition on the resident to withdraw complaints.
The resident advised this Service as recently as 10 June 2022 that her claim was yet to be settled.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The resident began to report problems with the plumbing at her property from early November 2020. The landlord initially responded within an appropriate timescale but there was no follow-up action to a problem it had identified with a faulty hot water tap. This problem remained unresolved at the point the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process in July 2021, even after the resident’s consistent reports from February 2021 that she was unable to run a bath. The landlord’s contractors have attended on multiple occasions during this time, sometimes concluding that the problem was with the temperature settings and otherwise finding that taps and a heating interface unit needed replacement. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to diagnose the fault over the course of eight months between November 2020 and July 2021.
The resident also reported a leak into her hallway in late December 2020. Although the landlord responded within an appropriate timescale by attending the property within 24 hours, it did not stop the leak until mid-February 2021. The landlord then failed to raise any remedial works until late April 2021. Although it completed works during May 2021, the landlord’s works schedule sent from its solicitor in May 2022 confirms that it is aware that further works to the hallway decorations are needed. This demonstrates that there was an inappropriate delay of almost two months in resolving the leak and remedial works were still outstanding at the point the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process five months later.
Another plumbing issue was reported by the resident at least as early as May 2021 when she advised that she now knew it was not correct that her toilet cistern was constantly re-filling; she linked this to a problem with occasional scalding water coming from her shower which she had been experiencing for at least two months at this point. Although the landlord initially responded in a reasonable timescale by fitting a new valve in early June 2021, this did not resolve the problem and when the complaints process was exhausted in late July 2021, the landlord acknowledged that further repairs were needed. This meant that there was an inappropriate delay of at least two months in the landlord resolving the toilet cistern (and knock-on scalding shower water) problem up to the point the complaints process was completed.
These unnecessary delays will have had an inevitable impact on the resident’s use of her property. She has explained that it has been problematic for her to use washing facilities (as a full bath could not be filled and the shower sometimes ran scalding hot water) and the photographs she has provided show that there was mould growth to the hallway due to the leak. It is also not disputed that the property suffered from a silverfish infestation that the landlord acknowledged will have been exacerbated by delays in resolving the leak and the resident has reported that these issues worsened pre-existing flooring and damp problems within the property. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to prioritise completion of repairs in light of the multiple potential health and safety concerns reported by the resident.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the repairs at the final stage of its complaints process in July 2021, it acknowledged and apologised for these failings. It also awarded compensation of £1500 which it said was intended to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delays. This was a significant level of compensation, was at the maximum level that the landlord’s compensation policy allows for and the landlord said it was also willing to consider additional amounts for expenses the resident had incurred and damages to her possessions. This amount was within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a severe long-term impact on a resident.
However, the landlord’s final complaint response also proposed to put right its earlier delays by conducting a full property ‘MOT’ which it said was intended to pick up any outstanding repairs issues. It also said it would address the remaining hot water, toilet and hallway works. Although there is evidence that it attempted to follow up on this during August-September 2021, these matters were still unresolved when the resident submitted a disrepair claim in October 2021. The landlord has since completed a couple of surveyor inspections linked to the disrepair claim but the relevant repairs remain incomplete. The landlord therefore failed to put right its earlier failings by not following up on the promises made in its final complaint response.
Further, there was no indication from the landlord that it took the opportunity to learn lessons from the failings identified in its handling of the repairs and attempted to improve its services as its complaints policy suggests it should. Learning from outcomes is also a principal component of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and it was unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate that it had established how to avoid similar failures in future.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably by more than six months in conducting plumbing repairs to resolve issues with insufficient hot water and an over-filling toilet cistern and in resolving a leak into the resident’s hallway and completing the follow-on remedial works. It offered apologies and a significant compensation award in its final complaint response but it subsequently failed to follow through on its promise to put things right and did not learn lessons to improve its service standards.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted an initial complaint on 1 January 2021 which was focused on the leak from above. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within a reasonable timescale but failed to issue a full response. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy showed that it should have responded to the complaint by late January 2021.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation to the landlord on 9 May 2021. Although the landlord issued a response within an appropriate timescale on this occasion, it did not address the resident’s toilet cistern concerns or her feedback that an earlier reply to her MP had contained inaccurate information. Further, the response was not written as if it was addressed to the resident herself; instead, it seemed to have been copied and pasted from feedback a colleague had given a staff member. It was unreasonable that the stage two complaint response did not cover all of the resident’s points of concern and referred to the resident in the third person.
The resident submitted a final complaint escalation on 31 May 2021. The landlord was obliged to organise a complaint panel meeting within 20 working days but the panel did not meet until 13 July 2021 so there was an inappropriate delay of two weeks and the final complaint response was therefore not issued until 26 July 2021, almost two months after the complaint escalation was received.
Although the landlord acknowledged there had been failings with the complaints process, the £1500 compensation awarded in its final complaint response represented appropriate redress up to that point for the repairs handling delays alone and it should have offered a specific amount in recognition of the complaint handling faults too.
Although it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to assess the handling of the Part 36 offer and counter-offer process by the landlord and its solicitors, there was a condition applied within at least one of the offers (namely, the March 2022 offer) that the resident should withdraw her complaints, including the one this Service was investigating. The Ombudsman’s ‘Pre-Action Protocols’ guidance (October 2021) set out that where a ‘landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from either the internal complaints process or the repair issue itself’. Although the landlord’s more recent offer did not contain such a condition, it was inappropriate that it attempted to put an obstacle in the way of the resident bringing her complaint to this Service.
In summary, there were unnecessary delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and there were occasions when it failed to answer aspects of her complaint. Further, it inappropriately told the resident she would need to withdraw her complaints as a condition of its Part 36 offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of plumbing repairs and a leak into her hallway;
2. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably between November 2020 to July 2021 in completing plumbing repairs, stopping a leak from above and conducting follow-on remedial works to the hallway. It accepted its failings in its final complaint response but it has since failed to put these right and did not demonstrate that it had learned lessons from the case.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy at each stage of the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. if it has not already done so, confirm when it intends to complete repairs to remedy the hot water supply problem, toilet cistern fault and hallway decorations;
3. if it has not already done so, advise how it will post-inspect each of these repairs to ensure that they have been successful.
In addition to the £1500 the landlord offered the resident in its final complaint response, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £750, made up of:
1. £500 in recognition of the further distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of plumbing repairs and a leak into her hallway;
2. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by its failure in the handling of her complaint.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report (including payment of the £1500 awarded in July 2021).

The landlord to review its handling of this case to:
1. create an action plan as to how it will learn lessons to improve its service in the handling of plumbing and leak from above repairs in future;
2. ensure that its staff act in accordance with the guidance contained within the Ombudsman’s ‘Pre-action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims & Service Complaints’ (October 2021).

The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.