Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202119899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119899

Notting Hill Genesis

1 August 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 resident’s complaint was about outstanding repairs and snagging, staff behaviour, delay to the resident’s uncle’s housing application and the resident’s application to succeed, theft at the property and the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a four-bedroom property under a tenancy which had begun on2 February 1970 or 9 August 1971, that had been granted to his grandmother, presumably, under the Housing Act 1957. In correspondence, the landlord referred to the tenancy being a secure tenancy. The previous tenant, the resident’s grandmother, had lived there with her son (the resident’s uncle) and daughter(the resident’s mother)and the resident. The resident succeeded to the tenancy after his grandmother passed away.

Legal and policy framework

Tenants’ statutory rights changed over the period of the tenancy but the rights in relation to the condition of the property and succession rights were not disputed in any event.
The landlord’s succession policy stated as follows:
1. Under a secure tenancy, a family member who has lived with the resident for at least one year can succeed to the tenancy.
2. If it is a sole tenancy and there is someone that wants to claim their entitlement to succeed the tenancy, the landlord should ask them to formally request it by completing a specific form. If there is no partner, and the tenancy agreement allows succession to a family member, the landlord should check if there are any family members who are eligible to succeed. Where there was more than one person eligible to succeed to the tenancy, it should inform all parties. If there is no partner, and the other eligible family members cannot agree between themselves, the final decision legally rests with the landlord. There was no hierarchy of succession rights for non-partner family members.
3. If the succeeding resident is not the partner of the deceased resident and the property is not suitable for them because they were under-occupying by one bedroom or more, the landlord can seek possession. The court must also be satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation will be available to the successor and their household. This reflects the provision of Ground 15a of the Housing Act 1985. If it is decided that the property is not suitable for the successor for the above reason, the housing officer should discuss this with them either in person or over the phone.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure.

Chronology

According to later correspondence in this chronology, it was not disputed that issues of disrepair had been present at the property since 2005 and that extensive remedial works were required. Surveys were carried out in 2015 and 2017. Some works were carried out, but further works were needed to modernise and refurbish the property which, in the opinion of the landlord, required the family to move out. Photographs provided to this service showed the property in poor state. According to contemporaneous correspondence from the months of April 2018 to October 2018, there was considerable discussion between the parties regarding a decant. The landlord offered the family a few properties, discussed that the resident’s uncle’s move to a one-bedroom flat and also suggested sheltered housing for the resident’s grandmother who by that time had, sadly, been diagnosed with a terminal illness. A meeting referred to the works taking up to one year but only a surveyor would have to make this assessment. The correspondence also referred to the resident’s uncle living independently and to potential issues regarding his moving out.
The family was decanted to another property on 8 October 2018. The resident’s grandmother passed away in March 2019. The resident succeeded to the tenancy but this was not confirmed until 15 May 2020.
On 4 April 2019, the landlord sent housing application forms to the family. It referred to an application by the resident’s uncle for a tenancy at another property as a sole tenant and a previous application that required correcting and had caused some delay.
The landlord wrote on 16 May 2019 stating the property was ready to move back into. Moving back would require the entire family to move back in. It set out options as they were no longer overcrowded after the demise of the resident’s grandmother, including moving away from the property. It said it would end the tenancy at the original property if the family could not agree. The resident replied that he was ”angry, sad and disgusted” at the suggestion the family would not move back into the property.
On 24 September 2019, the resident wrote that the family had decided the resident was to succeed to the tenancy but had not received a response from the landlord. The family also had been told they would be moving back to the original property in October 2019.
The landlord wrote in an undated email that the resident succeeded to the tenancy on 11 March 2019, the date his grandmother passed away.
There was a gap in the evidence, during which it is assumed there was no relevant correspondence.
Internal landlord emails of June 2020 and correspondence with the resident indicate that:
1. The resident was due to move back on 15 June 2020 but snagging works would be required. The landlord aimed to resolve these before the family moved back. The landlord referred to a list of works where the bedroom window and another item were an “extra”.
2. The landlord considered the importance of the internet to the resident’s mother.
3. The carpet was likely to be one colour due to supply shortages due to the then COVID-19 pandemic. The colour, according to the resident’s email, was agreed by the resident.
On 15 June 2020, according to internal landlord correspondence, the resident’s mother made a complaint by telephone as follows:
1. A washing machine had been fitted but the resident already had one, while the gas hob should have been the equivalent to the one removed.
2. The family had requested to keep a new cast iron bath and that had been removed.
3. Her goods in the shed had been scattered in the garden. They had consequently been damaged and some, including a bicycle, were missing.
According to the landlord’s email to the resident of the same day:
1. It would remove the washing machine, replace the gas hob and make internal enquiries about the shed.
2. While there was no agreement to connect the washing machine, it would do so.
3. The snagging would be carried out with the family in situ.
The resident’s mother wrote on 25 June 2020 that she required seven days’ notice for any works as she wished to “shadow“ the operatives to ensure the family’s possession were secure.
The resident also made a complaint as follows (the version provided to this service is undated but is assumed to be June 2020).
1. The property had been in a poor condition since 2005/6. New roofing and new windows were installed. Discussions took place but they were stalled when the housing officer dealing with the matter left the landlord’s employment. He cited this by way of context. He took over the matter when his grandmother was diagnosed with cancer. Her medical team had made a number of recommendations including air purifiers and protection from infection. The medical team was not aware of the housing conditions which included damp and inadequate heating.
2. He stated that a manager had tried to “bully” his grandmother into sheltered accommodation, stating that it would be better for the family. His grandmother got very upset, and the resident asked the manager to leave. He considered that the manager had had a hidden agenda.
3. Some of the officers communicated poorly but he did not wish to expand on this as he felt it was a systemic issue with the landlord and officers were “set up to fail”.
4. The landlord informed him that the family could either have grey carpet or buy their own within the budget and pay for the extra cost. However, the landlord did not provide the room sizes. It transpired that the supplier could provide differently-coloured carpets.
5. The landlord failed to communicate about the move back in so that he did not know how to get the keys or what condition the property was in.
6. The landlord did not pick up the phone. The resident preferred to communicate by email in order to remain calm. However, he considered the landlord should reply within less that the five working days set by the landlord’s policy.
7. The standard of work was poor and had taken two years instead of the promised six to nine months. He cited a number of examples including:
  1. The cement at the front house of the house was falling away.
  2. Incomplete decoration works such as the front door not having been “prepped”.
  3. Defects to windows and doors, such as a gap under a door.
  4. Issues with wires and cabling, as well as exposed pipes.
  5. The floor in the living room was not level.
  6. Defective lights, a badly fitted fuse box, and “second-hand” light switches and plug sockets.
  7. There was damp in the property. He considered that there was no proper damp proofing. The landlord stated it was wet plaster or paint.
8. The kitchen design and layout were impractical. The family was promised some input to how the kitchen would be laid out. There were only four cupboards. The cupboard doors were not aligned properly, and the oven not fitted properly.
9. The landlord had previously advised that the house level needed to be raised or the garden level lowered in order to prevent damp. The Ombudsman notes that the 2017 report referred to the level of the concrete hard standing areas appeared to be above the level of the existing damp proof course level.
10. The landlord had moved the drainage though that had been previously unsuccessful.
11. The shed was broken into, possessions were thrown about, and the door left wide open. The landlord had blamed his neighbours. Bags of rubble were left in the garden.
12. The landlord replaced the resident’s better-quality toilet with a smaller cheaper version but did not repair the toilet door.
13. They replaced their iron bath with a cheaper version. His view was that the contractors had stolen it.
14. The contractors had installed a mirror cabinet in an impractical position.
In an undated document at the time, the resident added the following complaints:
1. He did not know the location of the water shut off valve stopcock.
2. The hallway floor was uneven.
3. The landlord installed a gas meter and provided incorrect/misleading information about the supplier.
4. He cited examples of how the family felt treated contrary to the landlord’s stated aim includng “Our residents are at the heart of everything we do”.
5. He was embarrassed by the housing conditions.
A few days later, the resident emphasised that the issue was the renovation had taken two years instead of 6-9 months, the theft, quality of the workmanship and the lack of explanation why the damp had not been rectified.
According to further internal emails in July 2020, the landlord created a further snagging list including works to a light switch, damp in the dining room, and the bedroom window.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord made its stage 1 response as follows (it was dated and due to have been sent on 9 July 2020 for which delay it offered £30 compensation):
1. It had identified a “breakdown in the communication” between the resident and the Housing Operations Manager. This had not been the manager’s intention. It offered alterative points of contact.
2. It would not be addressing each and every aspect of the complaint.
3. While the communication had been confusing, it had relayed what the suppliers and contractors were communicating regarding the moving in date and the carpet. Due to the easing of the lockdown restrictions, they were able to restock. Some emails from the resident went into a “junk mailbox”. It suggested the resident could call as an alternative. It apologised the property still required snagging.
4. Some requests, such as regarding the bath, had been “lost”. It offered a replacement bath.
5. It recognised it should have liaised better regarding the kitchen.
6. It had been informed no one would enter the garden. The contractor did not remove all the rubbish as the works had not been completed but it would ensure that they would do so.
7. The police should address the alleged theft. The contractor refuted any involvement. Its contractor underwent criminal records checks. It highlighted that anyone could have been responsible.
8. It offered £250 for its service failures as its “highest” compensation award reserved for failures in service standards over a prolonged period of time.
On 28 August 2021, the landlord wrote with its “final“ response as follows:
1. It acknowledged his thoughts, feelings and concerns. The distress was not its intention.
2. It would not “formally” respond to any issues that were over 6 months old. “This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman Service restrictions on complaint applications.”
3. The manager assured the resident it was not her intention to be “brusque”.
4. The landlord had been working with the family to arrange a decant which included the option of sheltered housing.
5. It attached emails demonstrating it was not seeking to mislead the resident regarding the carpet. It took a decision at the time not to offer colour choices as it caused delays. Supplies were improving.
6. The contractors had not informed the landlord that the works were incomplete.
7. The contractors denied responsibly for any theft from the shed. The resident would have to contact the police. It noted the resident’s point that “someone” would have noticed “the stuff thrown across the garden” and reported it. It noted the distress this situation caused and in recognition of this, it offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill.
8. It set out the position regarding a number of repairs including the front door not being included in the proposals, any replacement electrical fittings were new. The existing fittings, if in good order were reused, exposed radiator pipes were a common occurrence in central heating installations.
9. The hardstanding to the rear of the property was reduced in level as it was the hardstanding causing some of the damp issues. Anew injected damp proof course was inserted, Waterproof Render installed to the internal areas, plus new drainage installed to the rear perimeter of the property. All damp works have been completed.
10. The kitchen was installed as far as possible to the original layout.
11. The sanitary ware were removed to carry out damp works and wall tiling and were not in a reusable condition.
12. There were some snagging issues and the contractors had actively tried to arrange to visit the property to resolve these but had failed to get an agreed date response. It asked for dates the resident would be available.
13. It offered £560 in compensation consisting of:
  1. £250 for its service failings & stress/inconvenience.
  2. £30 for each late complaint responses.
  3. £250 as its gesture of goodwill
  4. Replacement and fitting of a new bath.
On or around 28 August 2020 or 15 September 2020, the resident requested a review for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had not addressed his specific questions.
2. He wanted an apology for the length of time it had taken to renovate the property.
3. He had wanted an apology that the manager had “harassed” his grandmother.
4. The suppliers had damaged the doors.
5. He wanted the landlord to acknowledge fault.
6. The landlord had delayed his uncle’s housing application by which time the family would be under occupying. He considered that as they were permitted to rent a room, the family was not under occupying the property.
7. He queried the monitoring of the works.
8. His grandmother had been reluctant to leave the property.
9. He considered that the landlord acted for its own agenda and its housing officer had lied to the family.
10. The compensation of £250 was insufficient and did not cover the loss of their possessions from the shed and the “treatment” of his grandmother.
There was an exchange of emails from the end of July to mid-August regarding access in order to address the snags. According to the landlord, the resident wanted it to first address the complaint.
The landlord wrote on 15 September 2020 that it was sending its response and agreed to arrange a date for the snagging.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord wrote with a third stage review response as follows:
1. It acknowledged that there had been some long running repair issues at the property and the resident was decanted for two years. There had been further delays due to the resident’s concerns regarding completing the works during the pandemic. It listed the snagging issues including fitting a missing kitchen shelf, securing a new oven to its housing and replacing damaged architrave, redecorating, investigating and repairing damp plasterwork, securing the WC seat, and repairs and adjustments to bedroom doors and windows. Dates had been arranged in April 2021. The works were due to take two days to complete. It was to investigate the damp.
2. It offered £50 per room for the delayed snagging and £250 compensation for the stress and the inconvenience. It also offered £350 for stress and inconvenience of the outstanding repairs.
3. There was a lack of records from 2005 to 2011. It offered £350 for its failure in record keeping and the ensuing inconvenience.
4. Regarding its staff behaviour, it agreed its communication “should have been better”. It did not identify any harassing behaviour. It apologised if the communication with his grandmother “felt persistent”. The manager concerned would ensure that all parties are comfortable with the level of communication and ask for the customer’s preferences.
5. It apologised that there has been some delays in from the landlord and a lack of response “at times” to queries. The internal communication had also been poor and it had not followed its service standards. It offered £150 by way of compensation.
6. Where there was more than one person eligible to succeed to the tenancy, it was obliged to inform all parties. If there was no agreement, the final decision legally rested with the landlord. It had offered various options including remaining in the decant property, offering a two-bedroom property for the resident and his mother, and/or a one-bedroom flat for his uncle. If they remained in the original property, a decision was needed as to who would succeed the tenancy. The process took longer expected, as there were delays in responses from family members which took approximately six months. The decision that the resident should succeed was made in May 2019.
7. It agreed that there was “some service failure” about the decant process due to the difficulty in finding a suitable property that would meet the needs of everyone in the household. Several options were explored, including sheltered options for some family members. Concerns were raised about three of the properties offered by the landlord. The family moved to a property three roads away from the original property.
8. There was also a service failure as it failed to communicate with the resident about the move and it did not reply to the resident’s emails.
9. It offered £250 for the inconvenience and worry that this would have caused.
10. In relation to his uncle’s housing application, it had been agreed that the property was overcrowded which was no longer the case after his grandmother had passed away. It agreed that it did not explain the process or inform him that the uncle was no longer eligible for the household members scheme.
11. The resident had contacted the landlord in April 2019 regarding the move. It should have informed the landlord that it could have appealed the then decision. However, the uncle was no longer eligible as the household was adequately housed. It did not inform the resident clearly of the outcome or what changes would have to be made for a new application, namely, to downsize to a smaller property. It accepted that the resident had queried the process at the time.
12. It offered £150 in compensation in respect of the move.
13. It listed the lessons it had learnt, including writing to an applicant when an application is not successful.
14. It acknowledged it should have informed the resident that the contractor would use the garden to store rubbish. It referred the resident to the police and had spoken to its contractors about the theft. They reported that they did not access the garden shed. It had offered as a gesture of goodwill £250. However, it did not accept liability.
15. Its complaint handling at stages 1 and 2 was poor and was a service failure. It apologised for its delay in replying to the complaint at both stages of its complaints process. He had requested a stage 2 escalation in September 2020. It was agreed the stage 2 response was to be sent by the beginning of February 2021 however, this was delayed. It offered £100, consisting of £50 for each stage. It should have been clearer that further information was required. Its communication in updating the resident was poor and it offered £150.
16. It summarised it was offering £2,750 consisting as follows:
  1. Stress and Inconvenience (Repairs) £250.
  2. “Right to repair snagging issues” £350.
  3. Snagging work being outstanding £250.
  4. Poor communication £250.
  5. The uncle’s housing application procedure £150.
  6. Inability to find decant records between 2002-2011 £350.
  7. Late response at stages 1 and 2 £100.
  8. Complaint handling £150.
  9. Stress and inconvenience £250.
  10. Goodwill gesture for theft of items £250.
  11. Stress and inconvenience related to the decant £250.
17. The landlord noted lessons learnt, including:
  1. Better record keeping, although the finding was historic. Subsequently, all information was saved on its systems and tenants could access the portal. All emails were logged on the system. It had delivered staff training in saving tenants data.
  2. Better communication between it and its contractors including setting up meetings for complex issues and complaints. Improve communication with tenants. It would be clear and agree all dates with the works. It would improve management when major works are completed, give better notice of a move back in date.
  3. It would ensure that correct policies and procedures were followed when looking at moving options and its schemes and ensure that all decisions were communicated properly with residents.
  4. It would provide a weekly update and a single point of contact during the snagging works. They would be completed and it would ensure that he was properly supported. There would be a walk-through inspection by a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

There is a considerable and long-standing history to this case. It was not disputed that the property was in poor condition for a significant number of years. The evidence indicated that there had been a number of complaints over the years although this investigation has not seen information regarding the outcome of those complaints. While the landlord looked at the history of the decant, including historical events predating the official start date of the resident succeeding to the tenancy in March 2019, the historical events prior to that date are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because, apart from the fact the resident at the time was the resident’s grandmother, the Ombudsman does not investigate events that are historic because of the difficulty with records, it would not be proportionate, and the Ombudsman would anticipate that the resident would raise a complaint in good time. Moreover, the resident referred to a number of previous complaints and stated that he cited the past history by way of context.
This investigation does bear in mind the history and context of this complaint, which would have exacerbated the resident’s frustration and lack of trust that he felt in the landlord, particularly as he felt aggrieved on behalf of his grandmother and he himself had lived in the property, which experience he vividly described. While the Ombudsman has every sympathy with that experience, and that of his grandmother, for the reasons explained, the investigation focusses on the events after April 2019, at the time the resident succeeded to the tenancy and one year prior to his complaint. However, the investigation also acknowledges the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion and took note of the past events.
While the Ombudsman has not investigated events in relation to the resident’s complaint that a staff member had “harassed” his grandmother, there was no evidence that the landlord’s motives in suggesting a care home for her were motivated by malice. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would not be an unreasonable suggestion to make in the circumstances, although it is understood that it was not what his grandmother or her family wanted. The landlord reasonably apologised if its manner had appeared to be overbearing and accepted the need to be sensitive in the circumstances. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response in that regard was reasonable.
It was appropriate that, where there are competing rights of succession, the landlord should ensure that it communicates with all the members of the household and that the potential successors are in agreement. It was reasonable to give all the household members proper time to respond and seek agreement, rather than make a unilateral decision. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably in relation to the application for succession in that regard.
Without an agreement or policy, the rights under a tenancy pre-dating 1980 would be conferred under the rules of inheritance rather than a statutory obligation on the landlord. This tenancy was granted in 1970, prior to the landlord having a statutory obligation to give rights of succession. The landlord acted reasonably in having a policy that reflected the later legislation regarding rights of succession so that the resident was not disadvantaged by having an older tenancy.
Under the policy, the landlord had a right to rehouse a family where it was under occupying. This reflects the Housing Act 1985. While distressing for the resident and his family, the proposal was not inappropriate. The landlord did not explain its reasoning and there was no evidence that it spoke to the parties, in accordance with its policy, prior to its email of 19 May 2019, which could have alleviated the resident’s distress and frustration. However, the landlord acted reasonably in not pursuing this option. It was not clear why there was a delay in confirming the resident’s succession, once he had confirmed agreement. Given that this did not affect the eventual outcome, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation of £250 constituted reasonable redress.
In relation to the landlord delaying the uncle’s housing application, there was no evidence that this was done deliberately and the landlord could not have foreseen that the resident’s grandmother would pass away, causing the housing situation to change. It was not satisfactory that the landlord re-sent a housing application form in April 2019 as if the family were not under occupying and it did not explain that the uncle no longer was eligible for a transfer after the resident’s grandmother passed away. However, the landlord accepted that it did not follow procedure and that its communication was poor. However, there was no evidence of a lasting impact on the resident and the information available indicates that his uncle was subsequently rehoused. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that the offer of compensation of £150 constituted reasonable redress.
It was not disputed that there was poor communication in relation to the resident moving back into the property and that the works were not as complete as they should have been. It would have been frustrating for the resident to have moved back to the property after 18 months and found so many issues wrong with it and their possessions removed. It was not satisfactory that the landlord had not kept proper records regarding the family’s requests, for example the bath. While the failures ought not to have happened in the first place, it was reasonable of the landlord to address the washing machine, the cast iron bath, and the various defects and snagging issues.
While there were a number of frustrations, including confusion over the carpet, the landlord addressed this issue by seeking to ensure the resident had the colour carpet the resident had wanted. The landlord’s explanation that the situation was affected by the supply of the carpet was reasonable. Given the landlord sought to rectify the issues, the Ombudsman again finds that the offer of compensation of £150 constituted reasonable redress.
The evidence available indicates the reasons for the delay to the snagging issues were due to the ongoing pandemic, the resident wanting to first resolve the complaint and the resident’s concerns about infection, all of which cannot be attributed to the landlord. Its explanations regarding the repairs themselves were reasonable as was its explanation regarding the damp course. While the situation must have caused the resident significant frustration, in particular in the context of the delay, again the eventual offer of compensation is considered reasonable.
It was reasonable of the landlord to make enquiries of the contractor about the theft from the garage and refer the resident to the police. As distressing as the issue was, there was no evidence the theft was due to the fault of the landlord. In the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s view the offer of £250 was reasonable, given it had not identified any liability on behalf of the landlord or contractors.
The complaint process was confusing. The policy stated there was a two-stage process but there were three and the landlord provided separate responses on 29 July 2020, 28 August 2020 and 15 March 2021. There was a significant delay in the process and there is inadequate evidence for the reasons for the delay. However, while significantly after the Stage two response, the second review allowed the landlord to review its decisions for the better.
It was inappropriate that the landlord stated that it would not “formally” respond to any issues that were over six months old on the basis “this aligns with the Housing Ombudsman Service restrictions on complaint applications”. There were and are no such restrictions within this service’s Scheme, only guidance that a landlord may limit is responses to events which took place within the previous six months. The Ombudsman would expect some flexibility of approach. Indeed, while the landlord appeared to seek to limit the period of response, it reasonably addressed historical events, such as the manager’s conduct and exercised its reasonable discretion. The Ombudsman has taken this into account in assessing the reasonableness of the overall compensation offered by the landlord.
While the initial complaint response was inadequate as it did not address the issues the resident raised, or fully consider the resident’s frustration and disappointment, the review and final response attempted to rectify the matters raised. The landlord accepted the resident’s grounds for complaint, except in relation to the theft of the family’s possessions and the manager’s conduct. It sought to rectify the other issues and set out with some specificity how it would improve its delivery of services. While there was some confusion over amounts it offered as compensation (two offers were transposed), it reasonably reviewed and increased the levels of compensation.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation of a total of £250 for complaint handling was within the limits of the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies for similar delays and failures and therefore considers the offer reasonable.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s failures and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the sum of £2,700 and the actions that the landlord took constituted reasonable redress in relation to the entire complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the outstanding repairs and snagging, staff behaviour, delay to the resident’s uncle’s housing application and the resident’s application to succeed, theft at the property, and the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The property had been in disrepair and in poor condition for a significant number of years. There was evidence there had been previous complaints, the events occurred long before the resident’s complaint and therefore the Ombudsman has not investigated these matters in detail. In relation to the more recent events from March 2019, the landlord accepted its failures, offered rectification of the issues, set out an action plan for improvement, and offered what was in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable redress.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should pay the compensation of £2,700 if it has not already done so.
2. The landlord should, if it has not already done so, ensure that the damp in the resident’s property has been resolved.
3. The landlord must ensure that its advice and guidance arising from succession is legally correct and recognise when to seek internal legal advice.
4. The landlord must ensure that when it refers to the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance, that it is accurate and when appropriate refer to the actual guidance.
5. The landlord should ensure that it carries out the set of improvements it set out in its complaint response of 15 March 2021.
6. The landlord should provide feedback to the Ombudsman in relation to these recommendations within four weeks of this report.