Catalyst Housing Limited (202107468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107468

Catalyst Housing Limited

16 November 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:
1. Response to various reported defects, including damp resulting from water ingress through the property’s front and rear doors;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are shared owners of the property and the lease began on 23 November 2018. The property is a recently constructed semi-detached house on an estate containing similar housing. The ground floor is open plan with French doors leading to a patio/garden area. The residents are the property’s first occupants. They live with their daughter who has a health condition relating to her kidneys.
The landlord’s development arm appointed the estate’s primary building contractor. Although this contractor managed the construction process, the landlord was ultimately responsible for addressing reported defects. The landlord told the Ombudsman reported defects were either handed back to the original contractor, or addressed by its own repairs team. For readability, the report makes no distinction between the landlord and its development arm, which is part of the same group of companies.
New build properties are usually provided with a warranty policy covering structural defects. In this case, the property’s warranty was provided by the National Home Builder’s Council (NHBC). NHBC policies typically last for ten years and contain both warranty and insurance elements. A property’s builder is responsible for addressing any defects reported in the first two years of a policy. Policy holders must report defects to the builder in the first instance.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It provided complaints policy and procedure documents dated 11 January 2021. The Ombudsman was unable to find more relevant documents online. The documents show the landlord aimed to respond to all complaints within ten working days at both stages. They also show that, unless the complaint relates to the landlord’s handling of the situation, defects within a warranty period are not covered by the procedure.

Summary of events

The landlord provided the property’s repair history between 11 February 2019 and 8 March 2022. It shows on 27 August 2020 a repair order was raised to remove the property’s patio doors and reapply a membrane barrier. No similar repair orders were raised prior to this date. The repair history suggests there were no reported repairs between 9 April 2019 and 22 June 2020. This is contrary to information the residents provided in their subsequent complaint form.
The residents completed the landlord’s complaint form on 28 September 2020. They said there was damp underneath the property’s wooden flooring due to water ingress from outside. Further, the issue had been ongoing since October 2019, and the existing patio doors were previously reinstalled in an attempt to rectify the problem. They said the landlord should: replace the patio doors and all the flooring on the ground floor, ensure skilled operatives completed the works and pay compensation. Further, the problem needed resolving urgently given their daughter’s health condition.
The landlord acknowledged the residents’ complaint by email the following day. It said its complaints team would respond by 12 October 2020. Its records confirm it raised a complaint around the same time. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 2 October 2020 suggests a site visit had taken place that day. The landlord said, following this inspection, further investigation was needed to diagnose and resolve the issue. No information was seen to show the residents received any further complaint updates prior to the landlord’s deadline.
During internal correspondence on 2 October 2020, the landlord’s senior leader for new homes and aftercare advised its complaints handler to postpone any compensation discussions until the issue was correctly diagnosed and resolved. The correspondence shows the landlord’s Aftercare Team was handling the reported defects and coordinating the Complaints Team’s response.
The landlord updated the residents by email on 13 October 2020. It said it understood the flooring would be removed that day as part of its ongoing investigation. Further, though it would replace any flooring it removed, it was unable to confirm whether the patio doors would be replaced. The landlord also said it would consider compensation when the issue was resolved. The email’s wording indicates the residents had contacted the landlord chasing a response.
On 23 October 2020 the residents emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. They said the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to multiple build quality issues and they were badly treated overall. Further, the current situation needed urgent attention because dust and dirt from the bare concrete floors was affecting their daughter’s health. They also said, after the issues were resolved, “serious compensation” was needed to put things right. The email included a timeline of issues with the property. The residents’ main points were:
1. The patio doors were incorrectly installed when the residents first moved in. Since then, they had reported water ingress and damp on a number of occasions. They also gave the landlord supporting images in October 2019. The landlord had attended the property three times since 18 September 2020. Nevertheless, there were still multiple unresolved issues with the patio doors. The residents were concerned the recent visits had confirmed the patio’s drains were not connected properly.
2. The landlord’s investigation works involved significant upheaval. For example, a section of the flooring was initially removed to facilitate damp testing. However, all the flooring was subsequently removed during a further visit. The residents had to move their furniture and no dust coverings were provided. The bare floors were unpleasant to cross and the residents’ dogs needed special grooming due to transferred dust. In addition to the landlord’s own inspections, there were also a similar number of contractor visits.
3. Rainwater was leaking into the garage, kitchen units had been damaged and the toilets were leaking again. Further, the residents were experiencing “extreme inconvenience” due to the landlord’s poor handling of the situation. For example, it failed to attend agreed appointments and arrived unexpectedly on occasions. It also failed to follow up on promised actions and sometimes failed to respond altogether. The situation was impacting the residents’ mental health and engaging with the landlord was overly time consuming.
The landlord acknowledged the residents’ executive complaint on 26 October 2020. It said it would respond to their concerns within five working days. Its internal correspondence between 26 and 27 October 2020 details its subsequent investigation. The key points from this correspondence were:
1. Water ingress through the patio doors was resolved by sealing works, but multiple visits were required. Though the residents had since confirmed there was no further ingress, a prolonged spell of bad weather would test the new sealant. In relation to the other reported issues, the patio doors were inspected by the supplier, which confirmed they were operating correctly.
2. The drainage was a soakaway system that did not need connecting. An additional “outfall pipe” was previously installed as a precautionary measure at the residents’ request. It was noted the residents had increased the patio area and an increased flow of water should also be expected.
3. The concrete floor was now dry and replacement flooring would be installed on 2 November 2020. A latex covering would be laid over the concrete beforehand. To acknowledge the residents’ inconvenience, the landlord agreed to waive additional charges of £429 excluding VAT, which were due because the flooring was not a like-for-like replacement. The works should take around two days to complete.
4. The landlord was unaware of any kitchen damaged units and more information was needed to clarify the situation. Plumbers were arranged to attend the leaking toilets, but they had failed to attend a scheduled appointment. The residents were previously compensated £500 because they completed some outstanding tiling repairs themselves. A replacement bathroom door was due to be installed, but it was being stored in the residents’ garage and they were unable to retrieve it.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 30 October 2020 shows the scheduled flooring works were delayed because the resident reported further water ingress through the property’s front and patio doors.
On 6 November 2020 the residents updated the landlord. They said it had failed to respond to their complaint within five working days as promised. Their email suggests they were also expecting the landlord to arrange cleaning. It said they were unable to live with the dust any longer, so the residents would arrange their own cleaning. Further, the landlord should reimburse their cleaning costs as part of its overall compensation award.
The landlord’s internal correspondence between 12 and 16 November 2020 suggests the residents chased the landlord again for an update. The landlord subsequently said the flooring had been laid and a specialist contractor had been arranged to attend the water ingress. The landlord’s repair records show it replaced and painted skirting around this time. Overall, the timeline suggests the residents experienced acute disruption for around one month between 13 October and 16 November 2020. During this time, bare concrete flooring was exposed on the property’s (open plan) ground floor.
From the information seen, the residents notified the landlord they had raised a claim with the NHBC around 13 January 2021. No information was seen to show they received formal responses to either their initial complaint or their executive complaint during the interim period. The landlord’s later internal correspondence, from 16 February 2021, suggests they subsequently gave the landlord a list of outstanding repair issues on 2 February 2021. Further, the list prompted the landlord to obtain a quote to reduce the height of the patio.
The list detailed 22 defects including: leaking front and patio doors, leaking toilets, leaks to the front and side of the garage, loose mortar in brickwork, flooring and skirting board issues and numerous “nail pops” to the ceiling. The landlord’s corresponding notes said it was previously unaware of many reported issues. For example, drainage had been installed outside both sets of doors and no issues were raised during the landlord’s subsequent visits to the property. The notes show the landlord felt the residents wanted replacement patio doors.
During internal correspondence on 16 February 2021, the landlord said it would not install new doors just because the residents wanted them. This was on the basis replacement doors may not resolve matters until the source of the water ingress was identified. It also said, during a meeting that morning, the residents confirmed they used a pressure washer on the doors, so water ingress was to be expected. Further, outstanding toilet parts had now been delivered to the landlord from the manufacturer. This was around four months after the residents reported them leaking.
On 1 March 2021 the NHBC issued a resolution report concerning the patio doors and flooring. It said the property’s builder should ensure the doors were weathertight and that water damaged flooring was rectified by 28 May 2021. Around the same time, the residents told the landlord they were withholding their rent/service charges given the conditions in the property. The information seen shows the landlord eventually issued them a notice of seeking possession due to arrears.
The residents emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive again on 31 March 2021. They said the landlord missed a deadline to rectify multiple outstanding issues that day. As a result, they would obtain an independent survey and arrange their own engineers to complete the works. Further, they expected the landlord to cover any associated costs. The Ombudsman was unable to confirm the source of the referenced deadline. The residents also said, given the relevant lead time, the landlord was unlikely to achieve the NHBC’s May 2021 deadline because it had not approved replacement patio doors.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 1 April 2021 shows it was reluctant to lay additional flooring, and it was considering asking the NHBC for an extension. This was on the basis it had not identified the cause of the water ingress. The correspondence also suggests the landlord had scheduled a number of appointments for other outstanding works.
The landlord’s repair records from 27 April 2021 show it had attended the property’s toilets. The notes said, following the repair, the upstairs toilet would not flush and the engineer was unsure where the water was going because the cistern was concealed by tiles. Further, the residents’ daughter was vulnerable and needed access to the toilets. No further toilet repairs were recorded beyond this date. The timeline suggests it took the landlord around ten weeks to install the manufacturer’s parts following their arrival.
The drainage manufacturer emailed the residents on 6 May 2021. It said the residents’ photos highlighted multiple issues with drains installed outside the front and rear doors. For example, channels were incorrectly installed, modifications served no purpose and drains were not connected to the underground drainage system. Overall, it said the drains were not installed in line with its recommendations. Further, soakaways should be located at least five meters away from any structures.
The residents approached the Ombudsman for assistance around 28 June 2021. They said water was flooding into the property from the front and rear. Further, the landlord had not responded to a number of related complaints. The Ombudsman subsequently told the landlord to issue a stage one response by 23 July 2021.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord emailed the residents to acknowledge the NHBC was looking to take responsibility for completing works to the patio door and damaged flooring. It apologised for delays and assured the residents its Aftercare Team would continue to work with them in respect of other defects. The residents were awarded £200 to recognise ongoing inconvenience. The landlord said this amount represented its “maximum goodwill gesture”. The email was around ten months after the residents’ initial complaint. It confirms the landlord failed to comply with the NHBC’s deadline. The email was not a formal complaint response.
The residents asked to escalate their complaint the same day. They said the landlord repeatedly referred them to its Aftercare Team, which typically said it would contact the relevant parties to arrange works. They said this approach was insufficient and they wanted definite completion dates. Further, having bought a new house, they did not expect to be living with defects almost three years later. In addition, the £200 awarded was insulting given their experience. Overall, they said, the landlord should either take responsibility for the works or allow the NHBC to complete them.
On 10 August 2021 the NHBC notified the landlord it was taking responsibility for the repairs identified during its initial report. The NHBC said it had offered the residents a £2,568.43 cash settlement to resolve the dispute. It also said, in addition to a £1,000 administration fee, the landlord was liable for costs incurred for any further investigation works or repairs. The correspondence suggests the settlement figure was based on the estimated cost of the repairs.
On 25 August 2021 the NHBC issued another resolution report. It said the resident had uplifted internal flooring due to water ingress through the front door. Further, an external drainage channel along the threshold of the door was not connected to the drainage system. It said the lack of a connection was causing the drain to overflow resulting in water ingress. The NHBC said the landlord should complete the required works by 8 October 2021.
The residents emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive again on 6 September 2021. They said the landlord knew the situation was detrimental to their daughter’s health, but it was nevertheless “dragging things out”. Further, it had failed to comply with various sections of the Consumer Code for Home Builders, and the property fell below a number of the NHBC’s technical standards. Their main points were:
1. The existing patio doors were removed and reinstalled in September and December 2020. Despite new doors being installed in June 2021, the problem of water ingress remained unresolved. On each occasion, removing the doors involved upheaval for the residents. Water ingress through the front door was now subject to a separate NHBC claim. However, the landlord’s previous attempts to rectify the problem had made the situation worse.
2. The landlord’s contractor lifted a section of flooring and identified damp above tolerance levels. It subsequently removed all the flooring in October 2020, and the residents were left without flooring for three weeks. No dust covers were provided and dehumidifiers were running constantly using the property’s energy supply. Dog grooming had cost £90. A breakfast bar was damaged during the removal process and the residents were still awaiting replacement panels.
3. The residents had moved their furniture around ten times due to various flooring and skirting works. Works were often redone due to quality issues. Overall, the situation was highly inconvenient. The residents’ furniture and carpets had to be professionally cleaned. It also took around six months, between 19 October 2020 and 27 April 2021 to fix the leaking toilets. Nevertheless, a further visit was needed to address “gushing” water. The landlord failed to consider the residents’ increased water usage because they were unable to supply enough meter readings.
4. The leaking garage and defective external mortar had not been addressed. Drains to the front and rear of the property were also incorrectly installed resulting in flooding that “ruined” the garden. The residents had given the landlord a report that supported this conclusion. They were now aware the property’s down pipes may not be connected to the drainage system and a survey was required. This survey was expected to cost around £420 including VAT.
5. The residents were told to raise a formal complaint. However, in October 2020 the Complaints Team said it was waiting for a response from the Aftercare Team. A formal response had still not been issued. The overall situation caused the residents distress, depression and anxiety for almost three years. They were fed up with excuses, missed appointments and bungled repairs. Further, the landlord should not expect them to pay rent while the house was incomplete.
On 15 September 2021 the landlord advised the residents to refine the scope of their Subject Access Request (SAR). This was on the basis an initial search revealed the scope of their request was too broad and the information it held was extensive.
On 20 October 2021 the Ombudsman issued the landlord a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO). We said, despite the Ombudsman’s intervention, it had not responded to the complaint from 10 July 2021 onwards. The correspondence included our timeline of events. It confirmed the landlord failed to comply with three separate response deadlines, which this Service issued between August and October 2021.
On 22 October 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. This was around 13 months after the residents’ formal complaint. It offered the residents a £750 goodwill gesture to acknowledge their experience. It said there were significant delays in resolving defects, but most items were now complete. However, kitchen plinths and a bathroom door remained outstanding and the landlord would update the resident as soon as possible. It also said the defective mortar and garage leak had been referred to the NHBC. The landlord’s response did not quantify the referenced delays.
On 1 December 2021 the residents told the Ombudsman they were unhappy with the landlord’s final response given what had happened. They said the landlord failed to comply with the NHBC’s second deadline, 8 October 2021, relating to the front door. As a result, the NHBC had again taken responsibility for completing the relevant works. They said they were seeking a rent reimbursement of around £10K given they were living in a poorly constructed/incomplete home. They also said they were unable to escape the water ingress issue because the ground floor was open plan.
On 13 January 2022 the NHBC issued another resolution report. It said the landlord should address defective mortar in various locations around the property by 28 February 2022. However, no action was required in respect of damp to the interior of the garage walls. This was on the basis the NHBC’s standards allowed garages constructed with single skin masonry walls to become damp. The NHBC’s related documents said the resident first reported these issues in June 2019. Again, the landlord’s repair history did not contain any corresponding records.
In an update to the landlord on 8 June 2022, the landlord’s contractor said it attended the property that day and applied sealant to flooring around both the front and patio doors. The update referenced “newly fitted” flooring that was still covered in adhesive from the installation process. It said the residents confirmed they were happy with the works and that no further visits were required.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord provided its case evidence and supporting comments to the Ombudsman. It said, “(the residents) were known for intensively jet washing their patio due to having two small terrier dogs which also scuffed (their) lawn”. The landlord’s information included an update from its Aftercare Team. The key points were:
1. Apart from a small section of flooring inside a cupboard, all works to the property were complete. Further, “works to the mortar on brickwork was upheld by the NHBC and completed.” However, a claim relating to the garage was rejected because the wall was built within technical standards. The landlord’s comments indicate it ultimately resolved the claim relating to defective mortar. The landlord’s comments were made around 20 months after the residents’ formal complaint.
During a phone call on 2 November 2022, the residents told the Ombudsman the necessary repairs were complete. However, they had spent considerable time sourcing engineers and obtaining quotes because the NHBC settled claims in cash. Overall, they said the process took around one year and the settlement only covered the required repairs. It was also understood they ultimately cleared the rent arrears following the landlord’s threat of court action.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation has been both distressing and inconvenient for the residents. The timeline confirms it was ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, multiple visits were required to rectify reported defects. Both parties agree the residents reported other defects from around 2019. However, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters addressed by the landlord in its response to their formal complaint. It was noted, given the time that has passed, previous defects are likely to fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord has complied with its Freedom of Information obligations. The residents can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they are concerned about the landlord’s approach to their SAR request.

The landlord’s response to various reported defects

The landlord has consistently indicated it believes the residents, at least, contributed to the water ingress by pressure washing their doors. No evidence was seen to support this suggestion. In contrast, there was substantial evidence of both defects and subsequent repair quality issues. For example, the landlord identified the patio doors needed additional sealing around 26 October 2020. Further, in May 2021 the drainage manufacturer said modifications to a drain outside the front door served no purpose.
Similarly, no evidence was seen to support the residents’ assertion that the property’s garden was damaged due to flooding resulting from defective drainage or repairs. It was noted that the garden was not referenced in the drainage manufacturer’s email. Though the lease agreement contains a number of clauses around expert determination, no information was seen to show the residents’ ultimately obtained a survey at their own expense. Beyond the residents’ comments, little information was seen in relation to cleaning or grooming costs.
The timeline shows the landlord awarded the residents a total of £1,379 in goodwill gestures in respect of their complaint. This figure is based on the £429 of waived charges for replacement flooring around October 2020, £200 awarded during the landlord’s informal response on 23 July 2021 and £750 awarded in its final response on 22 October 2021. However, little information was seen to evidence either the landlord’s calculations or its underlying rationale.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have rectified the reported door issues within around one month. The timeline therefore points to door and flooring delays of around 20 months in total. It also indicates delays of up to seventeen months occurred in relation to the defective mortar. This is based on the period between 13 January 2021 and 9 June 2022. The timeline suggests a further delay of around ten weeks occurred when the landlord failed to promptly install toilet parts that were delivered by the manufacturer. Overall, the evidence points to combined delays of around 40 months in total.
This was an inappropriate timeframe given the circumstances. The evidence shows the NHBC was forced to assume responsibility for repairs on at least two occasions because the landlord failed to grasp the situation or comply with the NHBC’s deadlines. Considering the family’s vulnerabilities, it also points to acute disruption for around 3.5 months during the timeline. This is based on the periods, of one month and ten weeks respectively, where concrete flooring was exposed and the toilets were not fully functional due to the above identified delay.
It is reasonable to conclude that flooring repairs involved less disruption after the latex floor covering was installed. This is on the basis the covering likely reduced the amount of dust and dirt generated by subsequent repairs. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates the residents moved their furniture on multiple occasions to facilitate flooring and skirting repairs. Though it was likely distressing for the residents to live with defective brickwork for an extended period, it is reasonable to conclude that missing mortar had a lesser impact on their daily lives than the water ingress and associated damp.
The residents consistently said the situation was highly distressing and inconvenient. Further, they were unable to escape the water ingress due to the property’s open plan ground floor. It is reasonable to conclude the situation significantly reduced their ability to enjoy their new home during what should have been an exciting time. Given the extent the delays, around 40 months in total, and their impact on the residents, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to various reported defects.
The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the residents given the information seen. The Ombudsman’s order will be based on the premise the residents cannot fairly be expected to pay their full rent for the combined delay period of around 40 months. It was noted, though the landlord repeatedly failed to grasp the situation, it eventually attempted to put things right by awarding increased compensation in its final response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The residents’ initial complaint concerned the landlord’s handling of reported defects. They said the water ingress had been ongoing for around one year and previous repair attempts failed to resolve it. They also questioned the competence of the landlord’s operatives. These concerns were covered by the landlord’s complaints procedure and they should have been addressed accordingly. Nevertheless, despite opening a complaint record, the landlord failed to respond formally until around 13 months later. This is based on the period between 28 September 2020 and 22 October 2021.
During the interim period, the residents contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive on three occasions. Their correspondence confirms they wanted the landlord’s senior leadership to intervene because they were unhappy with its local complaint handling. However, the timeline shows the Chief Executive’s involvement failed to achieve any significant improvements. For example, the landlord failed to comply with its promised response deadline in October 2020. It also failed to issue an appropriate stage one response contrary to its complaints procedure.
The timeline shows the landlord tended towards informal complaint handling for most of the timeline. For example, its initial response, dated 23 July 2021, did not detail the complaint stage or the residents’ escalation rights. This was contrary to section 3.15 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published in July 2020, which confirmed landlords should provide this information on completion of each complaint stage. The Code was updated in April 2022 and the current provisions are now found in section 5.8.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s Aftercare Team was coordinating the landlord’s overall response to the reported defects. This is based on the landlord’s internal correspondence from 2 October 2020, and supported by the residents’ escalation comments. Nevertheless, the landlord’s Complaints Team issued its initial response. It is reasonable to conclude the Complaints Team should have known the required format for an appropriate complaint response.
The landlord’s informal approach was inappropriate given the nature of the complaint and the residents’ request for a formal response. The timeline confirms the residents eventually approached third parties, such as the NHBC and the Ombudsman, for assistance because they were unable to resolve matters through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It is reasonable to conclude this caused them additional inconvenience. The timeline also shows a CHFO was ultimately required to prompt a final response from the landlord.
Nevertheless, the landlord failed to acknowledge any complaint handling delays or failures in either of its responses. Nor did it attempt to learn from the complaint by using the residents’ experience to drive service improvements. Overall, the evidence confirms the landlord’s approach was unfair and required an excessive level of engagement from the residents. It also points to an inappropriate delay of around 12 months given the landlord should have responded within ten working days at both stages. It is reasonable to conclude the residents experienced unnecessary distress and inconvenience during this time.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. As a result, the Ombudsman will again award additional compensation to put things right for the residents based on the information seen.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to various reported defects, including damp resulting from water ingress through the property’s front and rear doors.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to rectify the reported defects resulting in combined delays of around 40 months in total. Ultimately, the NHBC had to assume responsibly for key repairs because the landlord failed to comply with its resolutions on two occasions. The situation was both distressing and highly inconvenient for the residents.
Despite its Chief Executive’s involvement, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the residents’ complaint for around 12 months. The residents eventually approached third parties to progress their complaint. The landlord subsequently failed to consider its complaint handling or learn from the residents’ experience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the residents a total of £2600 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £1,400 for any distress and inconvenience the residents were caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the various reported defects.
2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the residents were caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £950 (in total) which the landlord awarded in its complaint responses on 23 July and 22 October 2021. If the landlord had already paid this sum it should be deducted from the above total. The information seen suggests the landlord previously waived £429 in additional flooring costs.
The landlord to conduct a senior management review into the key issues highlighted during this report. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: executive complaint handling, tendency towards informal complaint handling and lack of learning from outcomes. It should also address the level of integration between its aftercare and complaints teams. This is to ensure complaints involving its Aftercare Team receive appropriate responses.
The landlord to contact the residents and gather information about their expenses within four weeks. This is to ensure they are appropriately reimbursed for any additional costs, such as cleaning or dog grooming, incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures. The landlord should update the Ombudsman about the outcome of its investigation.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider its own complaint handling as part of its standard complaint investigation process. This is with a view to ensuring any failures are identified and redressed accordingly.
The landlord to review its record keeping practices in relation to repair records. This is with a view to ensuring details of reported repairs and completion dates are captured accordingly.
The landlord to consider using independent surveyors as means to resolve longstanding defect/repair disputes.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.