Newlon Housing Trust (202126212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126212

Newlon Housing Trust

23 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to flooring in the property.
2. Repairs to the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille.

Scope of investigation

When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, she stated that the landlord’s review, issued on 19 January 2022 did not address the concerns she raised about operatives leaving her front door open on 12 November 2021. Given that this occurred after the landlord’s stage two response, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat with sole use of the garden. The landlord is a housing association and the resident has an assured tenancy that started on 1 September 2003. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but it is noted that the resident was pregnant when she submitted her complaint to the landlord and the baby born soon after.
The resident had two complaints running concurrently with the landlord, and for the purposes of this report, they will be dealt with separately even though timelines overlap.
As set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes). The landlord’s repairs policy also states that it is responsible for maintaining internal floors in good repair.
The policy states that the landlord will visit properties requiring emergency repairs within 24 hours and aims to complete all urgent and routine (non-urgent) repairs within 20 working days. Urgent repairs will be prioritised, and aim to be completed, on average within 10 working days. Non urgent repairs include (but not limited to) repairs to gutters and floors. In addition, the policy states that some repairs may take more than one visit to complete, but that this should not affect the timescale within which it has stated it will carry out the repair.
Its policy further states that the landlord arranges appointments with the contractor for the repair to be completed. If an appointment can’t be made, the resident is given a call reference number as confirmation that the call has been logged and an automatic SMS message is sent to the resident, confirming the date and time slot. A reminder is sent to the resident the day before the appointment and another when the operative is on their way to the property. If an appointment is cancelled, the landlord contacts the resident to rearrange it.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. Stage one complaints are logged and acknowledged within five working days and a response sent within 10 working days. Stage two complaints are acknowledged within two working days and the resident is informed of the proposed decision within 20 working days. At that point the resident has ten working days to make further submissions. Once these have been received the final response is formally issued. Stage two complaints are closed once all remedies outlined in the stage two response have been actioned and completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the levels of compensation that could be awarded, dependent on the severity of the service failure. In addition, it states that it will also consider the duration of the distress or inconvenience and any actions of the resident or landlord which either mitigated or contributed to the inconvenience.

Summary of events

The landlord’s handling of repairs to flooring in the property

The landlord’s repairs log notes that an emergency works order was issued on 22 December 2020 for a carpenter to attend the property to make the flooring safe, which was reported as sinking. The note stated that the resident was pregnant and that the operative should call 60 minutes before attending.
The flooring was made safe the same day and a variation order issued by the contractor, stating that there was approximately 10m2 of sub floor and 40m of vinyl and it would need to get a quote to repair the floor and get this agreed by the landlord.
The landlord chased the contractor for an update to the repair on 11 January 2021 and was advised by the contractor that it would need a new works order.
On 29 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair. On 4 February 2021, the landlord offered the resident two dates for the repair to be completed, the resident agreed for the work to be done on 11 February 2021.
An operative attended the property on 11 February 2021 and took measurements for the floor. On 17 February 2021, the resident submitted a stage one complaint, stating that she was unhappy with the length of time the flooring repair was taking and that she had not received a call back from a manager as she had requested. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2021 for an update, at which point the landlord confirmed that her complaint had been logged and that she would receive a response by 3 March 2021.
The landlord responded to the stage one response on 3 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in resolving the repairs to the kitchen and bathroom floor and set out the resident’s complaint. It stated that it understood that she was dissatisfied due to the length of time it was taking to complete the repairs and that she had not had any communication from the landlord, other than the operative attending to take measurements. In addition, it stated that it understood that in order to resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the work completed as soon as possible, a manager to call her back, and compensation for the delay.
The response provided a timeline of events up until 11 February 2021 and advised that it needed to approve additional costs before work to the floor could commence. The response concluded that:
1. The first call was made on 22 December 2020 as an emergency repair and an operative attended that day to make the floor safe. The subsequent follow-on works were raised as a 20 working day priority.
2. The contractor advised that the follow-on works were detailed and that it would require landlord authorisation before starting, and therefore asked for an extension to the target date.
3. The extension date had passed.
4. The resident had contacted the landlord several times for information and also asked for a manager call back, which was not logged on its system.
5. There was a service failure in the length of time it was taking to repair the floor and that this was primarily due to the need for additional authorisation.
6. The additional cost was in the process of being approved.
7. It would track the progress of the repair and ensure that it is completed in a timely manner and feed back to the resident in 7 days.
8. It would not offer compensation until the repair had been completed, so that it could take into account the exact length of time the repair took.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord received the variation order for the flooring repair and notified the resident. The landlord agreed the variation order on 13 April 2021.
The following day an appointment was made for 7 May 2021 to repair the subfloor under the bath, and according to the landlord repairs log, it would take two days. The resident accepted the appointment that day.
On 12 May 2021, the resident escalated her stage one complaint. She said that although an appointment was made for the 7 May 2021 to repair the floor, the job had not started. The operative who attended that day advised her that the job would take a minimum of 2 days to complete and by starting it that day she would have been without a bath over the weekend. In addition, she stated that the work to make the floor safe had been completed months prior and stated that she was unhappy with how the repair was progressing and that it was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 May 2021 and said that it aimed to respond by 11 June 2021.
On 16 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that she was unhappy with how the flooring repair had been managed and that although operatives attended on 10 June 2021 and 11 June 2021, the work was still not finished. She asked for her complaint to be escalated to the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 18 June 2021. With regard to the flooring repair, it repeated the response provided in its stage one complaint response. The landlord added that whilst the stage one response was correct to confirm that the repairs had a 20 working day priority, it should have kept the lines of communication open so that the resident didn’t have to chase progress. In addition, it apologised for how the repairs had been handled, and acknowledged that communication had been poor. It further acknowledged and apologised for poor planning and the impact that it had on the resident. In addition, it noted the resident’s most recent correspondence dated 16 June 2021 and said that it had requested an urgent update from the contractor on the status of the repairs and timescale for completion and that it would feedback to the resident as soon as it had a response.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint. It said that the complaint would remain open until all the work had been completed, and let the resident know that she could refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord made a total offer of compensation of £175 for:

a. £50 poor handling of repairs

b. £50 poor communication

c. £25 delayed complaint outcome

d. £50 inconvenience

The resident contacted the landlord following its stage two response and advised that she did not want to accept its offer of compensation. She confirmed that whilst some of the works had been completed there were still many outstanding. She highlighted her concerns that the temporary repair had been in place longer than necessary. It is noted that between the stage two response on 25 June 2021 and 12 January 2022, when the resident confirmed all flooring repairs had been completed, there were further issues regarding the booking of appointments and the handling of the repair.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident following completion of the repairs to the flooring. It confirmed the responses issued at stage one and stage two and the compensation that was offered. It stated that it had reviewed the complaint since the date of the stage two outcome and awarded a further £75 compensation although it did not say what this was being awarded for.
The resident replied to the landlord stating that she did not agree that the increased offer of compensation reflected the impact the issues she experienced had on her quality of life. The landlord subsequently increased the offer of compensation further, taking it to a total of £275.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service and explained that she was disappointed with the landlord’s final response. She stated that the repair took almost 13 months to complete and she did not feel that the length of time and inconvenience had been adequately assessed or compensated. She also mentioned that the landlord did not adequately respond to her concerns regarding the impact it was having on her family. She stated that as part of her complaint she raised the issue of operatives leaving her property with the front door wide open, but that this was not addressed in the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille

On 29 January 2021, the resident reported that the air vent in her living room was crumbling away. On the same day, in a separate email she also reported that the downpipe was not connected to the guttering which meant that rainwater was running down the external wall and not into the drain. She added that the guttering needed to be cleared. The landlord’s internal note stated to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The repair to the air vent and the repair to the down pipe were assigned different job numbers.
On 4 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying that she had been contacted by the contractor to arrange an appointment but that she could not give access as she was in hospital at the time. She stated that she was back at home and would like the appointment rebooked. It isn’t clear from the landlord’s internal notes which repair this call refers to.
The following day the resident contacted the landlord again to advise that an electrician had attended to fix the air vent in her living room but was unable to fix it as it was not an electric air vent. This was also confirmed by the operative who attended the property and noted that a builder or a vent specialist would need to attend to replace the vent.
On 11 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again and repeated her message from 4 February 2022 that she had been unable to give access to the roofing sub-contractor as she was in hospital at the time and that she wanted to arrange a new appointment. She called again the following day for an update and was told that an email had been sent to the roofing sub-contractor to arrange an appointment.
On 22 February 2021, the landlord’s internal notes show that they asked the repairs planning team to chase the roofing subcontractor for an update on the guttering and downpipe repair.
On 17 March 2021, the landlord contacted the contractor regarding the visit to the property on 5 February 2021 and stated that the resident had been told that someone would contact her regarding another appointment. The landlord asked the contractor to investigate.
On the same day an internal note states that roofing sub-contractors had visited the property several times over the previous few weeks to investigate the faulty drainpipe. The sub-contractors advised that scaffolding would not be required and that the repair could be completed using a platform.
Also on the same day, the resident submitted a stage one complaint about the delay in repairing the downpipe and faulty air vent. She stated that both issues were reported on 29 January 2021 and were still outstanding. She also said that roofing sub-contractors had telephoned her at random times to look at what work was needed and that appointments were not pre-arranged. In addition, she said that there had been no progress on the repair to the faulty air vent since an electrician visited on 5 February 2021.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint regarding the repair and lack of communication in respect of a faulty downpipe and guttering and a faulty air vent and vent grille on 31 March 2021. It apologised for any delay and lack of communication in relation to the repairs and set out what it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:

a. The delay and lack of communication received for work to repair the faulty downpipe and faulty air vent.

b. Both repairs were reported on 29 January 2021 and are still outstanding.

c. Roofing sub-contractors contacting the resident without pre-arranged appointments.

d. Not being given another appointment to fix the faulty air vent.

The landlord also stated that it understood that in order to resolve the complaint the resident wanted the outstanding works completed as soon as possible. The landlord set out a time line of events up until 12 February 2021 and concluded that:
1. The faulty downpipe was raised as a 60 working day repair, which is standard for any roofing job, in case it requires scaffolding. The contractor passed the job to a roofing sub-contractor to make contact with the resident directly. The landlord apologised if the sub-contractor did not correctly pre-arrange appointments and noted that the resident had encountered difficulties when attempting to make contact with them. It stated that it had asked the sub-contractor to make pre-arranged appointments and that they contact the resident immediately to arrange an appointment so that works can commence and be completed before the target date.
2. The faulty air vent was raised as a 20 working day repair, The target date for this repair was 26 February 2021. An electrician attended on 5 February 2021 and could not fix the vent. The job was closed and a new works order issued on 12 February 2021 as a 60 working day repair. The new target date for this repair was 12 May 2021. The landlord also confirmed that the correct trade had attended the property and noted additional work was needed that the landlord would need to authorise. The landlord stated that it would track progress of the repair and provide the resident with an update within 7 working days.
The landlord apologised for the fact that it had not correctly explained the target dates for repairs to the resident. It acknowledged that its poor communication had contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction and offered the resident £25 compensation in the form of a voucher. It added that if the resident’s rent account was in arrears, the compensation would be paid into her rent account. The resident accepted the offer of compensation the same day and the landlord confirmed that it would continue to monitor the progress of the repairs.
On 8 April 2021, an internal note showed that the landlord had chased the repair to the downpipe, it reminded the contractor that the sub-contractors would need to make a pre-arranged appointment and not arrive unannounced. It also reminded the contractor that the target date for the repair was 27 April 2021.
The following day the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had received a call from the sub-contractors asking if they could attend that day. The resident was unhappy with the way the sub-contractor was communicating with her and understood that appointments had to be made in advance.
The same day, an internal note showed that the landlord had reminded the contractor not to call resident’s unannounced.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update for the repairs. It stated that the contractor had attempted to visit the previous day to repair the air vent grille but that there was no access. It confirmed that it had asked the contractor to make a new appointment, or if the resident preferred she could contact the landlord to make the appointment.
On 19 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the roofing subcontractor had contacted her that morning to let her know that an operative would attend that morning. Despite the resident not being given ample notice she agreed that she would be available. However, the operative never attended and the resident only became aware that the appointment had been cancelled when she telephoned the landlord in the afternoon. The landlord contacted the contractor the same day to request that they made a new appointment and also that they ensured the sub-contractor did not continue to make unannounced visits.
The landlord’s internal notes show that the following day there was an email exchange between the landlord and the contractor regarding the sub-contractor making visits at short notice. The landlord stated that it had previously asked the sub-contractor to make a prearranged appointment with the resident and ensure the landlord was also aware of the date, but that the sub-contractor had not actioned this request. In addition it asked that the contractor discuss with its sub-contractors and explain that it was not appropriate to cold-call residents.
On 12 May 2021, the resident escalated her stage one complaint. In her correspondence she repeated the incident that took place on 19 April 2021 and explained that since then, she had not received any correspondence from the landlord in relation to this event. She confirmed that the sub-contractor had arranged a date for the repair. But also stated that she was unhappy with the service she had received in relation to the repairs.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 18 May 2021 and said that it aimed to respond by 11 June 2021.
On 24 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the roofing sub-contractor had been booked in to attend that day to fix the guttering. However, when she contacted the landlord to ensure the appointment was still going ahead, she was told that there was no appointment booked for that day and that the appointment was on 2 June 2021. She explained that she was disappointed that the landlord appeared to have no way of monitoring when jobs were booked with sub-contractors or if they had been carried out as arranged. She also requested confirmation of the appointment on 2 June 2021.
On 2 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that although she had been told that an appointment had been made for the roofing sub-contractor to attend that day, she had not been given a time slot and, on contacting the sub-contractor was told that the appointment was for 11 June 2021. The resident asked for the latest error to be added to her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2021 to apologise for the inconvenience in relation to the repairs, and to confirm that it would check the progress of the repair after the appointment on 11 June 2021. It also confirmed that the latest incident would be included in her complaint.
On 11 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had waited in that morning for the sub-contractor to attend between 8:30 and 12:30. However, the sub-contractor stated that there was no appointment booked for that day as the resident failed to confirm the appointment. The resident advised that she had contacted the subcontractor on 4 June 2021 in response to a text message she received from them regarding the appointment, and they told her that the officer responsible for booking appointments was not available. However, it did not advise that she needed to call back.
The landlord’s internal notes showed that there was an email exchange between the landlord and the sub-contractor in which the landlord requested confirmation of the appointment to attend to the guttering. It noted that the appointment was booked for 13 July 2021.
The stage two response was issued on 25 June 2021. The landlord apologised for the way the repairs had been handled and it acknowledged that communication had been poor. It noted that there had been several mistakes made by the sub-contractor in respect of booking appointments. The landlord acknowledged that this was a service failure. The landlord further acknowledged errors made with appointments being booked and rescheduled on 24 May 2021, 2 June 2021 and 11 June 2021. The landlord noted that there had been no valid reason for these mistakes and that it would log it as a service failure. It also said that it was disappointed that the sub-contractor stated that there was no confirmed appointment for 11 June 2021, even though it was clear from correspondence that the resident was anticipating the appointment going ahead.
The landlord confirmed that it has been made aware that an appointment had been booked for that day to repair the vent grille, but that the sub-contractor is waiting for an appointment from the contractor to fix the downpipe. The landlord had asked that the new appointment is confirmed to all parties as soon as possible and that it would continue to monitor the repairs until they are all completed. It also stated that the complaint would remain open. The landlord offered £300 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £25 Stage One award
2. £100 Poor communication
3. £125 missed appointments
4. £50 Inconvenience caused.
It stated that this was the final response but that if she was still unhappy, she could contact the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord following its stage two response and advised that she did not want to accept its offer of compensation. She explained that not all jobs had been completed. Between the stage two response on 25 June 2021 and 5 January 2022, when the resident confirmed all work had been completed, there were several exchanges between the resident and landlord regarding the outstanding work and the poor communication regarding this.
The resident replied to the landlord stating that she did not agree that the increased offer of compensation adequately compensated her for the failings she experienced. The landlord subsequently increased the offer of compensation further, taking it to a total of £375.
In response, on 7 February 2022, the landlord reviewed and increased its offer by £25, bringing it to a total of £400.
The resident brought both complaints to this Service and explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response as it combined both complaints into one, which she felt affected the level of compensation offered. She did not agree that the landlord responded to all points raised regarding missed appointments, and cancellations. She reiterated that contractors turned up unannounced without a previous appointment having been arranged. She stated that neither repair was complicated and did not understand why they took so long.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:

be fair
put things right
learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to flooring in the property

The landlord aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. In response to the resident’s concerns about the sinking floor, it attended the property within the stated timescale and made a temporary fix to the flooring. This Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately in dealing with the emergency repair.
Given the extent of the repair needed, the landlord required a variation order, and the subsequent works were issued as a 20 working day repair. The landlord’s policy states that some repairs may require more than one visit to complete, but that this should not affect the timescale in which the landlord has said it would complete the repair.
In its stage one response on 3 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged that the delay was as a result of it having to authorise additional work. Nevertheless, it also acknowledged that there was a service failure and that the resident had waited an unreasonable length of time for the repairs to take place. It also stated that the extension date given to the contractor had passed. It did not state what the agreed date was, but based on the landlord’s response this Service finds it reasonable to conclude that the repair should have been completed by the date of the stage one response.
At that time, it also stated that the extra cost involved in completing the work was in the process of being approved. However, evidence shows that the landlord didn’t receive the variation order until 9 April 2021 and it was subsequently agreed on 13 April 2021.
In both its stage one and stage two response, the landlord apologised for the way the repairs had been handled and acknowledged that there had been multiple visits by contractors but that the repairs were still outstanding. As part of its response at stage two, it offered the resident compensation for the various service failures and assured her that it would follow up the status of the repairs and review the complaint again once all repairs had been completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where repairs have been delayed it will make an offer of compensation between £10 and £25 per week (dependent on the severity of the impact on the resident) and that it is payable once the repair is out of target. It also states that it will offer £25 for a service failure, which includes poor communication. And may also make an award for unquantifiable costs, such as stress caused by service failure.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the delays and poor communication and apologising to the resident. It attempted to put things right by initially offering £175 in view of its handling of repairs, poor communication and inconvenience. However, its offer was inadequate as it did not take full account of the number of weeks the repair was out of target.
This Service notes that on completion of the repairs, the landlord reviewed the complaint and the length of time the repairs took, and increased its offer of compensation to £275, of which £125 was for handling of repairs. However, given the length of time the repair was out of target (44 weeks) it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have made an offer of compensation in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation didn’t reflect its own policy position, which allows for a compensation payment of £10 per week for each week the repair is out of target.
In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had waited an unreasonable length of time and that an agreed extension date had passed. In addition, in its own repairs policy, the landlord states that some repairs may take more than one visit to complete, but that this should not affect the timescale within which it has stated it will carry out the repair. This Service finds that the length of time to complete the repair was excessive and consequently finds maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repairs to the flooring in the property.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille

In response to the resident’s report of a crumbling air vent and broken downpipe, the landlord issued two repairs orders. The air vent was initially given a 20 working day priority, which was subsequently changed to 60 working days, and the broken downpipe a 60 working day priority for completion. This was an appropriate response to each of the repairs.
However, there were various mistakes made by contractors during each of the repairs processes, which resulted in both repairs being completed out of target.
As well as her dissatisfaction with the length of time the repairs were taking, the resident highlighted her concerns regarding the way in which appointments were arranged by the subcontractor in respect of the downpipe repair. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the way appointments were made at short notice and also cancelled. This Service has seen at least five examples of appointments being made or cancelled at short notice and where the landlord’s policy was not followed. These incidents occurred on: 9 April 2021; 19 April 2021 (on that day an appointment was made at short notice and then the contractor failed to attend); 2June 2021 and 11 June 2021.
This Service accepts that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the appointments made and missed by contractors appropriately in both its stage one and stage two responses. It communicated with the contractors and reminded them of the correct way of arranging appointments. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond in that way. Nevertheless, errors were made, and this impacted on the resident and contributed to the delay in completing repairs.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the delays and poor communication and apologising to the resident. It attempted to put things right by initially offering £300 compensation for missed appointments, poor communication and inconvenience. However, its offer was inadequate as it did not take full account of the number of weeks the repair was out of target.
On completion of all repairs, the landlord reviewed its repairs handling and increased its offer of compensation to £400, of which £75 was for the additional delays. However, both the repair to the air vent and the downpipe was delayed well past the target date, for which the landlord should have made an offer of compensation in line with its policy.
The Service finds that the length of time to complete the repair was excessive and consequently finds maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repairs to the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to flooring in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille.

Reasons

The handling of the repairs to the flooring failed to meet the standard required, in particular the length of time the repair took far exceeded the target date given, which impacted on the resident’s ability to enjoy her home.
The handling of the repairs to the guttering and downpipe and air vent and vent grille failed to meet the standard required, in particular the length of time the repairs took far exceeded the target date given. In addition, the landlord’s policy in relation to booking of appointments, was not followed, which led to undue stress and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Re-offer the £275 it already offered at its final review stage for its handling of repairs to the flooring, if not previously accepted.
2. Pay directly to the resident an additional £315 for the delay in completing the flooring repairs.
3. Re-offer the £400 it already offered at its final review stage for its handling of the repairs to the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille, if not previously accepted.
4. Pay directly to the resident an additional £435 for the delay in completing the guttering, downpipe, vent and vent grille repairs.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to show compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reminds its contractors of its policy in relation to arranging, booking and cancelling appointments with its residents.