London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202014885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014885

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

22 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking tap in September 2020.
2. Handling of the subsequent repairs to the bathroom.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint tenant with his mother, and they have an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 1992. The property is a four bedroomed house. The resident’s mother is vulnerable. The landlord’s system noted from September 2020 that she had a long-term disability and on-going medical issues including balance and range of movements on her left side that affected her balance. It noted further in November 2021 that she had mental health issues.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations it provided for, among other things, the water and sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systemsand waste pipes.
In relation to bathroom repairs, the landlord’s repair responsibilities policy says it is responsible for, among other things: washbasins and tiles; taps (when leaking, stiff or loose); and any pipework (when leaking).
This repairs policy says that, when diagnosing repairs that are reported by vulnerable residents, it will, among other things take the following action:
1. Consider whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health.
2. Treat repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk.
The policy also says that it offers a service adjustment register to residents with a chronic illness, disability or age-related frailty. Following assessment, qualifying residents may be eligible for priority repair appointments and/or minor repairs and replacements to be carried out at no additional cost.
This policy also says that, if a resident is responsible for a repair but either refuses or is unable to arrange the repair, and the damage is causing a health and safety hazard that presents a serious risk of harm or non-repair would cause further damage to the property then it would offer the resident a chargeable repair.
Information about “Your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant” which is on the landlord’s website, says that for emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours; for all non-emergency repairs it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy. This says that, where possible, it aims to resolve the complaint there and then. If it cannot, it will refer it to the person or department best placed to help; they will make contact by the end of the next working day. The policy explains that the landlord will write within ten working days after it receives a complaint to explain the outcome of its investigation, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescales. If it cannot do so, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. It adds that, after it has agreed the resolution and confirmed its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
The policy says that, where a complaint is escalated to stage two, someone not involved at stage one will carry out a review of the complaint. It will make contact within two working days to give complainants the opportunity to explain their side of things and will write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it cannot, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. After it has agreed the resolution and confirmed its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it needs to put things right when it gets things wrong and fails to provide a quality service. This may include paying compensation which may be a mix of statutory-based payments, its own discretionary-based payments, goodwill gestures, and/or part-refunding of service charges.
This policy explains that the right to repair scheme helps tenants to get small specific qualifying repairs done quickly. These are matters that relate to health, safety, and security. For example, total loss of water, electricity, or gas. Under Right to Repair, repairs must cost less than £250 and if not completed within the statutory target times, the landlord must pay statutory compensation. This is £10 plus an additional £2 per household per day (for every extra day the repair is not fixed) capped at £50. The policy adds that an additional discretionary payment may be made acknowledging the impact, inconvenience, distress, and time/effort required of the resident.
This policy also says that the landlord may pay compensation, in the form of a rent rebate, if a customer is not able to use a room in their home because of a repair issue that is its responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption. It also explains that it will pay fixed awards for service failure including a payment of £10 for the service failures including failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy and for missed appointments where it will make a payment of £20 for its failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice.

Summary of events

On 15 September 2020 the landlord noted an “uncontrollable leak” in the bathroom which was a health and safety issue as the resident was disabled and could not wipe the floor and this was also a trip hazard. It noted that silicon – applied by a previous plumber – had not resolved the issue; that the floor was flooded and that this was an “ongoing issue”.
On 16 September 2020 the resident called the landlord as no-one had turned up for a priority appointment in relation to a leak in the bathroom. It is not clear from the evidence when this matter was first reported to the landlord. The landlord advised that its operative could not do the job as this was a private bathroom installed by the resident and he would have to arrange his own plumber to rectify the issue. The resident told the landlord that the wet room had been put in by the “local authority/landlord”. The evidence provided by the landlord included an undated email from the local authority confirming that its contractors had carried out the work following receipt of a disabled facilities grant.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord sought advice internally on this issue. It is not clear from the evidence if a response was given.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord raised a critical repair in respect of the leak. It noted the leak was damaging the floor. On 17 November 2020 the landlord replaced the tap in the bathroom.
On 30 November 2020 the resident told the landlord that the bathroom tap was still leaking. The landlord noted the same day that the floorboards needed replacing and it issued a repair order to its flooring contractor.
On 23 December 2020 the flooring contractor told the landlord they had been unable to arrange a visit to the property. The repair log suggests this repair was closed.
The landlord fitted a new tap in the bathroom on 7 January 2021. This Service understands that this resolved the leak.
On 31 January 2021 the resident raised a complaint regarding the leak and the replacement of the bathroom flooring which he said he had raised more than eight weeks previously. He said no-one had taken this repair seriously. He said the leak had gone underneath the flooring causing the water to come out from the grout line which he said was a “hazard, slippery”. He said his mother was registered disabled and vulnerable and two weeks ago she had had an accident and cut her eyebrows when she fell over and had to have eight stitches. He asked that the repair was escalated.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord asked its flooring contractor to contact the resident. They responded a few days later saying they had called the resident to book an inspection, but it had been declined saying they wanted ceramic tiles.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident noting his dissatisfaction that it had been unable to resolve matters and said that his complaint would be escalated to stage two of its formal complaints procedure. (This Service has not seen a copy of any formal stage one response nor a specific escalation request from the resident.) The landlord explained that the contractor had said that he had requested the installation of ceramic tiles to the bathroom floor; however, works of this nature were outside its maintenance responsibility. It added that, when a bathroom floor covering was renewed, it would replace with vinyl flooring only. The landlord added it would appreciate receiving clarification from the resident about the reasons for his dissatisfaction and the outcome he was seeking.
On 10 March 2021 one of the landlord’s building surveyors noted that as the wet room works had been carried out with a disabled facilities grant, it would have responsibility to maintain the wet room. He suggested that it was possible that a membrane had only been partially installed to the shower area behind the screen and not the floor beneath the wash basin, which had allowed water ingress, as any pipework would run beneath the floor. He advised that a contractor should attend to remove the washbasin if required and remove floor tiles to inspect for any dampness beneath. He added that the floor would then need to dry out to allow the tiles to be re-laid or replaced if they had been broken during removal.
The evidence suggests that on 17 March 2021 a surveyor attended the property and found that the floor tiles in the bathroom needed to be lifted because there was water underneath. The landlord instructed its bathroom contractor to schedule the repairs and it wrote to the resident the next day giving details of the contractor who would carry out the following work: the replacement of the ceramic tiled wet room floor; replacement of the vanity unit; and redecorating bathroom ceiling in moisture and mould resistant paint; and to seal and redecorate the kitchen ceiling on completion.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. The level of service the resident had received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide; it should have managed the repairs more effectively and the leak resolved more swiftly.
2. It offered compensation of £200 which it said recognised delays in progression of the repairs, delay in receipt of the stage two acknowledgement and the time and effort the resident invested in contacting it.
3. It would monitor the repairs and the complaint would remain open until works to the bathroom floor were completed successfully.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 5 May 2021 the resident chased the landlord for action on the outstanding repairs saying the leak was still appearing on the kitchen ceiling and had damaged the ceiling plasterboard. On the same day, the landlord chased the contractor.
On 14 May 2021 the contractor asked the landlord to authorise a new vanity unit, wash basin and tiles for the bathroom.
On 16 June 2021 the landlord noted that the resident wanted mosaic tiles, but these were out of stock and would take five to six weeks for delivery. It noted it had informed the resident of this and he wanted to wait for the tiles.
On 16 and 23 August 2021 the resident said the damp and mould contractor had reported that the bathroom fan was not working properly; however, no one had been out to replace it. On 23 August 2021 the landlord noted that it had raised this issue with its repairs team.
On 31 August 2021 the resident reported that the kitchen ceiling needed to be re‑plastered and the kitchen wall needed repainting as they had been damaged by the leak from the bathroom. He said the contractors had not yet started work on the new bathroom. He attached photos of the leak and damage.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord noted that the contractor would make good works to the kitchen ceiling and wall once the bathroom works had been completed. It noted further that the bathroom tiles were now in stock, and they would contact the resident direct to arrange a date for the works to commence.
On 28 September 2021 the resident reported that the cover of the bathroom extractor fan kept falling off. In response, the landlord said that a contractor would attend on 5 November 2021.
On 7 October 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint about the installation of the wet room. In brief he complained about the “extreme poor standard” of the work to the bathroom. He said:
1. The contractors had caused a hazardous situation for his mother who was registered disabled.
2. The tiles were not level, and the contractors had damaged the wall, tiles, and kitchen walls and ceiling and the shower screen.
3. For 20 days they had been living without an upstairs shower, toilet, sink and flooring. He gave details of his mother’s health conditions and said she needed to go to the toilet every 15-30 minutes as she had kidney problems. He added that this was a “huge struggle” for her to go downstairs and she had no energy left and was therefore wetting the bed.
4. He added that his mother had fallen and tripped in the hallway and stairs several times and had bruises “all over her legs and face”.
5. He said that no-one was taking his complaints seriously and he wanted compensation.
On 14 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that his mother had sustained an injury on the door that had been placed in the hallway – “scratches and bruising to hand and legs”. On the same day the landlord completed an incident report noting that there appeared to be a vulnerable person living without basic sanitary provisions. It noted this should be investigated urgently. It further noted that it had contacted the resident and obtained details of the incident.
On the same day the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident. The main points were:
1. It agreed the work on the bathroom had been an “unpleasant” experience and acknowledged that while the resident would prefer to use alternative contractors, ultimately his priority was to get the works completed. The landlord said it would not be practical to start again with a different contractor as it might be difficult to get the work completed in an acceptable timeframe. It noted that the resident did not want the original operatives to attend, but were content for supervisors that attended subsequently to re-attend.
2. It considered that a joint inspection would be helpful with the contractor so that the remainder of the works could be agreed and resolutions discussed. It said an appointment had been arranged for 16 October 2021. It added it was hopeful that, with its supervision, it would shortly bring the outstanding works to a swift resolution.
3. It apologised on behalf of itself and the contractors “for the poor experience” adding “clearly we have fallen short on this occasion”. It offered discretionary compensation of £100. This is calculated at £50 for the delay with the works and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
4. With regard to the resident’s mother’s accident, it recommended that he liaise with its insurance team if they wished to pursue a personal injury claim.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
The evidence suggests that a vanity unit was installed on 16 October 2021. Following contact from the resident, the complaint was escalated on 21 October 2021.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord told the resident that it was checking if one of its contractors could repair the kitchen floor tiles and refit the vanity unit in the bathroom, since he was happy with their work. It asked for photos of the damaged kitchen tiles and vanity unit.
On 2 December 2021 the contractor gave the landlord the following information:
1. They had removed the shower, wash basin and floor tiles on about 21 September 2021.
2. The repairs were carried out, but the resident had refused the tiles because he said they were not an exact match; they explained that the tiles were made in batches, and they could not match old tiles. They had replaced the tiles on 24 September 2021.
3. They noted that their operatives had reported that the resident had walked on the newly laid tiles and moved them and then he put marks on the ones he did not like the pattern. All the tiles were removed,
4. On 28 to 30 September 2021 the works were re-done by different operatives.
5. The resident had refused access on 4 October 2021 when they had attended to replace the vanity unit as he wanted the landlord’s surveyor to attend.
6. Surveyor attended on 16 October 2021 and afterwards emails were sent to the resident seeking his agreement (presumably to install the vanity unit).
On 6 December 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaints procedure to the resident. The main points were:
1. There was delay in issuing the stage two complaint response due to staff sickness. It apologised for that failing.
2. Although it felt its contractors had taken the resident’s mother’s medical conditions into account, it realised there had been occasions where it did not follow through on its commitment to her and the family. It said there were flags on the system to denote her medical conditions; however, it did not appear to have a document to verify that his mother was registered as disabled and asked for a copy of that documentation. It added that this would mean she would receive a priority repair service.
3. It hoped the resident’s mother’s recovery was going well after her reported injury in October 2021. It said it understood that this had been addressed now (but did not give details of that) and added that, should she wish to pursue a claim for the injury, this must be made via its insurance team and gave details about how to do that.
4. The resident had been prepared to wait for the preferred tiles, even if this meant that the wet room was in disrepair. The tiles were ordered on 21 June 2021 and the resident chased their delivery on 16 August 2021. It noted that suppliers had “been struggling to fulfil deliveries” due to lack of products and distribution issues post-lockdown.
5. The contractor believed that the bathroom may have been used and the newly laid tiles walked on. Whilst it acknowledged that there was no evidence of that happening, it meant that the tiles had to be re-laid and this delayed the works.
6. It increased its offered compensation to £611.50 made up of £40.00 for complaint handling failures; £230 for the distress, time, effort, and the inconvenience caused; £100 for the right to repair and £241.50 as a gesture of good will for not being able to use the wet room for 21 days. It explained this was based on a 50% reduction in weekly rent for 21 days. He landlord said that £359.47 of that sum would be offset against the current rent arrears and the remaining £252.03 would be sent by cheque.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 16 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that there were repairs outstanding in the bathroom, namely the tap, the vanity unit, the shower screen and siliconing.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord told the resident that it had followed up with his outstanding repairs at a recent site visit. It said it did not consider that these repairs were its responsibility and therefore would not be doing them. It said it could not help further with the outstanding repairs.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord arranged for the bathroom to be silicone; it subsequently arranged for the tap to be repaired also.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said the complaint also related to the kitchen flooring and the vanity unit and this Service had agreed to add these matters to the complaint. The resident also said that his mother had had a fall in the kitchen in March 2022 and had broken her nose. He said this matter had been referred to the landlord’s insurers soon after but had not heard anything further despite emailing over 80 times and making 25 calls. In relation to the bathroom, he said there was still a slow leak from the tap that was leaking into the kitchen and the vanity unit had been damaged. As an outcome he was seeking compensation. He said he wanted the kitchen flooring to be replaced as it was a hazard, the kitchen to be redecorated and the leak to stop.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the complaint

The resident made two separate complaints to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the bathroom and both have been considered as part of this report. However, the issues raised after the final response of December 2021 are not included in this investigation because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not usually investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This means that landlords must usually have an opportunity to investigate complaints before they are brought to this Service. This includes the issue of the replacement kitchen flooring which did not form part of the resident’s formal complaints to the landlord and the landlord’s decision in December 2021 that it was not responsible for some of the later repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking tap in September 2020

The landlord’s handling of the reports of a leaking tap in September 2020 was not appropriate. The evidence shows that the landlord refused to resolve the matter as it believed, wrongly, that the resident had installed the bathroom himself and therefore it was not its repairing responsibility. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the defect was putting members of the household at risk because of their health in line with its repairs policy.
Given the vulnerability of members of the household; the fact that it had acknowledged this was a health and safety issue; as well as the damage the leak was causing to the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this repair as an escalated priority in line with its repairs policy as it was an increased health and safety risk. Had the landlord later found it was not responsible for the repair, it could have recharged the cost of that to the resident. Leaving a vulnerable resident at risk was a serious failing.
The evidence is not clear on whether any repair was completed between 15 September 2020 – when the leak was reported – and 17 November 2020 when the tap was replaced. However, by the end of November 2020 the replacement tap had also started leaking. It was replaced in early January 2021. The evidence suggests that the leak persisted from 15 September 2020 to 7 January 2021 (apart from 17 to 30 November 2021). This should have been attended to for a repair within 24 hours in line with the landlord’s responsibilities. In total the resident experienced delays of some 99 days which is approximately 14 weeks.
In its final complaint response of 18 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged there had been failings; that it should have managed the repairs more effectively and the leak resolved more swiftly. It offered compensation of £200 that it said covered the delays in progressing the repairs as well as the delay in issuing the stage two response. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have given an explanation of how it had reached that figure and what proportion of it was for repairs and complaint handling. In the absence of such a breakdown, a presumption has been made that it was £100 for each matter.
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 resident’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 evident that the leak in the bathroom caused great distress and inconvenience to the resident and his mother. As the landlord has acknowledged, this was a health and safety matter and a trip hazard. This would have been a particular risk to someone with balance and mobility problems. The evidence suggests that the leak persisted from 15 September 2020 to 7 January 2021 (apart from 17 to 30 November 2021). The compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect the impact on the resident and his mother.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical health) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Taking account of that, compensation of £569.25 is appropriate here for impact on the residents by the delays in resolving the leaking tap in the bathroom. This was calculated using 25% of the daily rent of £23 a day (used by the landlord in its compensation calculations in the final report of December 2021) This replaces the landlord’s offer of £100.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the bathroom

Following the leak being resolved in January 2021, the landlord scheduled further repairs to the bathroom including replacing the vanity unit and replacing the flooring as the leak had caused damage to the floorboards. In its complaint response of March 2021, the landlord said it would monitor the repairs and the complaint would remain open until works to the bathroom floor were completed successfully.
The landlord’s handling of the subsequent bathroom repairs was not appropriate. There is no evidence of any action taken in relation to the repairs identified by the surveyor in March 2021 until May 2021 when the contractor sought authorisation to make purchases. Some delay that followed was not due to the landlord, but the resident, who wanted certain tiles that were not available until mid-August 2021. While work started one month later, the evidence demonstrates that some work had to be re-done by a different contractor in relation to the floor tiles.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there had been failings and offered compensation of £571.40, broken down as follows:
1. £230 for distress, time, effort, and inconvenience caused.
2. £100 for the right to repair (it did not explain what specifically that was for).
3. £241.40 for the loss of the wet room for 21 days (based on 50% reduction in rent at £23 a day).
This Service considers that sum of £230 did not reflect the full distress experienced by the resident’s mother as set out in the resident’s formal complaint of 7 October 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored if a temporary decant was appropriate or if other measures could have been put in place to assist her during these works. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. Therefore, the sum of £500 is more proportionate for the distress caused. This sum replaces the £230 offered and also reflects the time, effort and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
It was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident or his mother to make a claim for damages caused by the injuries caused to her in October 2021. This is because the insurance team would be able to assess the impact on her as a result of the accident and reach a decision on whether it was a result of any negligence by the landlord.
The resident told the Ombudsman that his mother had suffered a more recent fall in the kitchen in March 2022 and such a claim had been made to the landlord’s insurers soon after, but he had not heard anything back, despite chasing. That fall is not the subject of this complaint; however, a recommendation has been made, below, for the landlord to ask its insurer to give the resident an update on this claim.
When the resident approached this Service he said some matters were still outstanding, namely that there was still a slow leak in the bathroom that was leaking into the kitchen; and the replacement of the vanity unit.
In relation to the vanity unit, the evidence suggests that this was replaced in October 2021 and that it was due to be re-fitted. The repairs log does not evidence that this was done subsequently and this Service notes that, following a site visit in December 2021, the landlord decided that the outstanding repairs were not its responsibility (these appear to include the replacement of the kitchen tiles; re-silicone of the bathroom; the damaged vanity unit and the leaking tap which the resident said it was moving and a leaking shower screen). This Service notes further that the landlord subsequently attended to repair the tap and silicone the bathroom.
The letter of 20 December 2021 did not give reasons why these repairs did not fall within the landlord’s responsibility. While these matters do not fall within the scope of this complaint as they occurred after the final complaint response was issued, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to write to the resident giving such reasons. It would then be open to the resident to make a fresh complaint to the landlord about this matter if he wished to do so.
The evidence is not clear on what, if any, works were done to the kitchen following the leak. The repairs log evidences that original bathroom contractor was supposed to seal and redecorate the kitchen ceiling on completion of the bathroom works. Given that contractor did not complete the works it is unclear if that work was carried out and an order has been made, below, for the landlord to arrange to visit the property to see what action is required to stop the leaking bathroom tap – that has been leaking intermittently since September 2020 – and to ensure that any consequent damage to the kitchen has been remedied.

Complaint handling

In relation to the first complaint considered as part of this report (raised on 31 January 2021), this Service has not seen the stage one response nor the escalation request. The evidence suggests that the action was taken to move the issue (relating to the bathroom flooring)forward; however, the landlord did not provide us with evidence that a formal stage one complaint response was sent.
The landlord’s final response acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation (although a breakdown was not given of what was for the repairs and what was for complaint handling). This Service therefore presumed that £100 was for complaint handling which was adequate.
In relation to the second complaint (raised on 7 October 2021), the landlord acknowledged that the final response was outside the timescales set out in its complaint procedure. It offered compensation of £40 for the inconvenience that caused to the resident. This Service considers that that sum is proportionate given the impact was of short duration (12 working days).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking tap in September 2020.
2. Handling of the subsequent repairs to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the tap was not appropriate. It did not act in accordance with its policy particularly in relation to vulnerable residents. The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact on the members of the household.
The landlord acknowledged there had been failings in relation to the subsequent repairs to the bathroom and, while it offered redress, this again was not proportionate especially in relation to the impact on the resident’s mother.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling for which it offered adequate redress.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Write to the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay direct to the resident the sum of £1,410.65 made up of (minus any payments previously made):
  1. £569.25 for the impact on the residents by the delays in resolving the leaking tap in the bathroom (replacing the sum of £100 offered in the final complaint response of 18 March 2021).
  2. £100 right to repair (offered in the final response dated 6 December 2021).
  3. £241.40 for room loss (offered in the final response of 6 December 2021).
  4. £500 for the distress caused to the residents (replacing the sum of £230 offered in the final complaint response of 6 December 2021).
3. Visit the property to see what action is required to try to permanently stop the leaking bathroom tap – that has been leaking intermittently since September 2020 – and to ensure that any consequent damage to the kitchen (including any damage to the flooring) has been remedied.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Pays the resident direct the sum of £140 for its complaints handling failures (if this has not been paid already). The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on this sum being paid.
2. Asks its insurer to give the resident an update on the claim made in respect of his mother’s accident in March 2022.