Westminster City Council (202201379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201379

Westminster City Council

16 November 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 residents 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 response to:
1. The residents’ concerns about its handling of a leak into the flat below as well as their concerns about operatives visiting the property without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).
2. The resident’s reports of a leak.
3. The residents’ reports of disrepair in the bathroom.
4. The residents’ request to be reimbursed for the time they were not living in the property due to a flood.
5. The residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
6. The complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 25(a) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to:
1. The residents’ reports of a leak
2. The residents’ reports of disrepair in the bathroom.
3. The residents’ request to be reimbursed for the time they were not living in the property due to a flood.
4. The residents’ reports of ASB.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said they wanted the Ombudsman to consider these issues. However, as they have not yet been considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond and therefore the matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
This report will therefore consider the residents’ complaints about the landlord’s handling of their concerns about its handling of a leak into the flat below as well as their concerns about operatives visiting the property without appropriate PPE and the risk this posed to the household. The report will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and her husband have a secure tenancy with the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat in a block. The landlord was aware that two of the residents in the household were over 60 years of age with health problems and had been shielding since the start of the pandemic in early 2020. The residents’ son often communicated with the landlord; therefore, for ease of reading, I will refer to him and the residents as ‘the residents’ throughout this report.
The tenant’s handbook explains that the landlord has a legal duty to carry out certain repairs and it is responsible for, among other things, keeping in good working order the services that supply water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water. This reflects the obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The handbook also says that a tenant has a responsibility to provide access at reasonable times for repairs to be carried out, for the repair to be inspected if required before and/or after completion and for gas safety checks to be completed. It adds that the landlord can take legal action if a tenant does not provide access when reasonably requested.
The handbook has three classes of repairs:

Emergency – issues which pose an immediate health and safety risk such as fire, loss of electricity or water supply. Respond within 2 to 4 hours to make safe.

Urgent – plumbing works, blockages, and works. Respond and start work within 24 hours.

Non-urgent by appointment – more substantial repairs such as joinery, plastering, damp proof courses or major repairs.

The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond within ten working days at both stages. The policy says, at stage one, complaints will be dealt with by the local service or office and considered by the relevant manager, or anyone else delegated to look at them.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code which sets out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code says that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued or it would unreasonably delay the response. Where the stage one response has been issued, the Code says that best practice would be for these matters to be logged as a new complaint.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to COVID-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over the Christmas period, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord introduced COVID-19 contingency planning measures. This said that, where a resident was self-isolating, the operative must wear over shoes, face mask, a white paper suit, glasses, and gloves. It noted that its contractors must confirm that the above will worn and put on by their operatives prior to entering the home. The resident must not be in the same room as the operative that is self-isolating. The landlord did not provide details of any further contingency plans including for the period after lockdown.

Summary of events

The repairs log noted on 13 November 2019 that the landlord needed access to the property due to a leak going into the flat below. It noted no access on 25 November 2019.
The repair log noted that on 30 December 2019 the landlord attended the property, and the kitchen and bathroom showed no signs of a leak. It noted further that there was a void cupboard space behind the bath, and it suspected that was where the leak was coming from; however, it was unable to access this space as it was covered by a panel board and tiles. It also noted suspected asbestos. On 27 January 2020 the repairs log noted no asbestos had been found after testing.
The repair log noted that on 6 February 2020 the landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact the residents about visiting the property to investigate the leak noting there was no facility to leave a message.
On 11 February 2020 an operative attended the property but did not gain access. The evidence suggests this appointment was rebooked for 19 and then 20 February 2020. The notes from the repair log said that a multi-trader was needed to attend with a plumber to investigate a leak behind a tiled wall. Some tiles and a panel needed to be removed and replaced once the investigation was complete.
On 5 March 2020 an operative again tried to gain access and left a card when the visit was not successful. On 20 March 2020 the residents told the landlord that they did not want to have any contractors coming into the property to carry out further investigations citing serious concerns about COVID.
The repair log shows that on 24 March 2020 the landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact the residents about visiting the property to investigate the leak noting there was no facility to leave a message. The repair log shows that on 3 April 2020 the landlord again tried unsuccessfully to gain access to the property.
Some three months later on 15 July 2020, the residents told the landlord that they had returned to the property after four months away. After speaking to the residents the next day the landlord confirmed that its operatives would wear full PPE including hazmat suits when visiting the property.
On 20 July 2020 the residents told the landlord about their concern about the operatives who had attended that morning in connection with the bathroom disrepair. The residents said the operatives did not clean the areas of the property they had moved through, and it had taken them two hours to clean the property after they had left and the hazmat suit worn by one operative appeared used. The residents expressed concern that it could have been used in a property where there might have been COVID present.
In response the landlord told the residents, among other things, that it had explained in calls earlier that month that all staff would wear full PPE including hazmat suits. It confirmed that it would not be able to move the residents out of the property while works took place, but it would ask the residents to socially distance in another room if a repair was being carried out and any areas where a repair had been carried out would be fully cleaned.
On the same day the residents told the landlord that an operative who had attended on 17 July 2020 had only worn a face mask, not full PPE. They explained that appointment would have to be re-booked as there were vulnerable people on the household.
On 2 September 2020 a plumber attended the flat below noting there was water leaking onto the kitchen ceiling. They noted they had tried to gain access to the residents’ flat without success and left a card.
On 8 September the residents said that the leak into the flat below was a problem “that stretches back to more than ten to fifteen years ago” and several investigations had been undertaken to identify the source of the leak without success. They questioned what other work could be undertaken to identify it.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord noted that it had cancelled the work for the investigation of the leak as there was no access. It noted it had emailed the residents asking when they were available, but they had not replied for two weeks.
On 22 September 2020 the residents explained that, given the growing number of people affected by the pandemic, and the vulnerability of household members, they could not allow operatives into the property at that time. The landlord responded the following day saying it understood their concerns and would put the works on hold for the time being. It added, however, that if the damage to the flat below worsened the investigations would need to be carried out to avoid further damage. It also noted that, when its operatives attended, full PPE would be worn.
On 13 October 2020 the neighbour reported the leak into their kitchen again. On the same day the landlord asked the residents to contact it to arrange an appointment. On 14 October 2020 the residents told the landlord that an operative had turned up that day without an appointment. Later that month they asked that the landlord postponed its investigations until the pandemic was over.
On 22 and 30 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents saying that there was an “emergency leak which was causing damage.” It said that “following extensive onsite investigations” it strongly believed the water leak could be coming from the property and asked that urgent access be given.
On 23 October 2020 the residents’ GP gave them a note which asked the landlord to postpone non-essential work on the property as the residents was classed as “high-risk” if they were to catch COVID.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord said, while it sympathised with the residents’ position in relation to the pandemic, it was important it had access to the property to find and rectify the leak.
On 8 December 2020 the neighbour reported that the leak to their kitchen ceiling was continuing. The landlord noted it should make contact with the flats above to trace the leak. It noted it would need access with full PPE but that the residents did not want anyone to attend until the number of people affected by the pandemic had gone down as a member of the household was vulnerable.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property on 23 December 2020 to investigate the leak. The job form noted full PPE should be worn.
On the same day the landlord issued a letter before action to the residents which warned it might seek an injunction in court for access. It explained that it was a breach of their tenancy agreement if, upon request, the residents refused access to the landlord seeking to carry out inspection regarding a need for repairs. It assured the residents that its contractors would be in full PPE in line with pandemic guidelines. The landlord further noted that urgent access was required on 23 December 2020 and the residents should make contact if that date was not suitable. This appointment was re‑arranged to 30 December 2020 at the residents’ request.
On 22 December 2020 the residents raised a formal complaint. The main points were:
1. Operatives had attended the property on 17 July and 14 August 2020 without wearing the appropriate PPE.
2. The landlord tried to coerce them into allowing operatives into the property to search for a leak on at least fifteen occasions between 26 August and 30 October 2020; this had caused anxiety to a member of the household and had had a detrimental effect on their mental health.
3. The residents explained that they were committed to cooperate fully with the landlord’s search for a leak but asked, given the age and health conditions of the residents along with the worsening and severity of the pandemic. To postpone the job until the residents were vaccinated. They also asked the landlord to cease any legal action.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 January 2021 noting that there were delays in its complaint processes due to the limited capacity and that it would let them know when they could expect to receive the complaint response. A few days later it confirmed it would respond to the complaint by 26 January 2021.
Meanwhile, on 30 December 2020, the residents had cancelled the appointment citing safety concerns. The repair log that day noted the job had been cancelled until the residents had been vaccinated.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord delivered a letter to the residents saying it would attend the following day; however, the repairs log notes that it did not gain access. In internal emails at that time, it noted that reasonable notice was not given for that appointment.
On 13 January 2021 the landlord noted that the leak into the flat below was a “slow leak” and water was not dripping every day. Given this and having sought legal advice, the landlord decided not to seek an injunction at that time but to wait until members of the residents’ household had been vaccinated.
On 18 January 2021 the residents’ doctor gave the residents a note which asked the landlord to defer the inspection of the property until the residents had been vaccinated. She explained that the residents were over 60 years of age with an autoimmune condition and suffered from anxiety and depression as a result of workmen entering the property without PPE. She added that she expected the residents to be vaccinated by the end of the following month.
On 25 January 2021 the landlord’s solicitor noted in an email to the residents’ solicitor that he did “not have a copy survey report of the ongoing leak and I don’t think one exists otherwise I would have been given a copy of it. The instructions I have is that the leak was observed by members of the repair team”.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord responded to the residents at stage one of its formal complaint procedures. It upheld the complaint and set out the history of the repair of the leak. Some details were historical, going back to 2016. The main points were:
1. It needed to gain access to the property to investigate all the water pipes, sanitary equipment and drainage to make sure the leak was not coming from the property. It explained that this process of trial and testing could be time consuming and intrusive but needed to take place to prevent further damage to the structure of the building and to the flat below. If access was not provided, it would have no option but to refer the matter to its legal team.
2. It apologised for the lack of due diligence given to the health and safety guideline by its operatives when attending the property and assured the residents that they were within their rights to not allow admittance to operatives without full PPE. It added that it took this matter very seriously and was disappointed that its contractors went against its process and directives in place; that matter had been raised with senior repair managers to investigate accordingly.
3. The landlord said that going forward, it would ensure all operatives attended the property in full PPE which would include overalls, shoe covers, gloves and masks and any areas disturbed during the works would be disinfected.
The landlord concluded that the complaint was upheld as it failed to comply with the residents’ request that operatives wore full PPE when attending the property. It explained how the residents could escalate the complaint. This letter was signed by the landlord’s head of repairs, engineering and housing; however, at the top of the letter it said the matter was being dealt with by a named property manager and gave his email address.
On 28 January 2021 the residents’ support worker contacted the landlord saying that the residents were hoping that the inspection could be postponed until they had been vaccinated; however, if the landlord considered an urgent inspection was absolutely essential and could not be delayed, they suggested taking measures to ensure the risk to both the physical and mental health of the residents was minimised. These included an inspection date to be agreed two weeks in advance; if the repair was to be complex or disruptive, then the residents should be decanted; and operatives to ensure they were COVID-free by testing in advance of the appointment as well as wearing full PPE. The residents’ solicitor contacted the landlord the following day also.
In response the landlord’s solicitor said that he had not yet drafted the injunction and would not deal the points raised but referred to the residents’ tenancy agreement with regard to access for repairs. The solicitor said that the terms of the tenancy agreement was the only thing that bound both parties. He added that he would be filing the injunction without any further notice on the residents.
On 22 March 2021 the residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint on the following grounds:
1. There were many incorrect statements in the stage one response and had obtained further information that refuted various statements contained in that response.
2. It had not offered any remedy for “the unnecessary distress, suffering, harassment, and detriment to our mental health that we have been enduring”.
3. There had been “many further incidents” of operatives attending the flat neither wearing full PPE nor disinfecting the areas disturbed during their work.
4. Discontent with the landlord’s actions in relation to a burst water pipe at the end of January 2021; in relation to a bathroom disrepair (a foul smell); and discontent with the landlord’s handling of their reports of ASB.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged the residents’ escalation request. It said that it aimed to respond by 13 April 2021 adding that if that was not possible it would let them know in writing the reasons for the delay and when they could expect a full response. The landlord said that the residents had added three new complaint issues (a burst hot water pipe, bathroom disrepair and ASB). It added, if those issues had been raised with its contact centre and they remained unhappy with the service they had received, then they should raise a new stage one complaint by completing the online complaints form.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the residents explaining that it would miss its deadline of 13 April 2021 and it aimed to respond by 27 April 2021.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response. It noted that the residents were unhappy that the property manager had been involved in the stage one complaint response (he was named as dealing with the matter at the top of the stage one complaint). In relation to that matter and the issues considered in this report, the main points were:
1. It explained that the property manager had been involved in the complaint response as he had been attempting to resolve the leak into the neighbour’s property since 2019. It explained he had been liaising with the housing management team to resolve the matter and was best placed to provide the background details of the action it had taken in relation to the leak.
2. It said the residents had not provided any details of the statements that they believed were incorrect nor have they made available the additional information. It said it was unable to investigate without this information. It asked the residents to provide this information and said it would then investigate.
3. The landlord said it was sorry to learn that operatives had again visited the property without the correct PPE being worn. It said that all of it contractors had provided safe methods of working during the pandemic and their operatives had been reminded of the importance of always wearing PPE. In relation to the incident on 14 August 2020, it explained the operative knocked on the door to announce his arrival and to check that the residents was home, before returning to his vehicle to put on his PPE. It apologised that he failed to wear full PPE before knocking on the door.
4. The landlord also said that all contractors had been reminded of its commitment to the residents in relation to the wearing of PPE; and if there was any reason why works being undertaken prohibited the use of full PPE, this would be explained to the residents ahead of the appointment and an alternative safe method of working would be discussed.
The landlord signposted the residents to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO).
When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said the landlord’s promise that all operatives would attend the property in full PPE was never kept, despite it being fully aware of their vulnerability. They felt that the landlord had put their health and lives at stake. They said they were seeking compensation and confirmed they had not had a final response to the other issues raised.

Assessment and findings

Scope

While the residents have said that the issue of the leak into the flat below has been going on for over ten years, this report has considered matters from November 2019 which appears to be the starting point for the events which led to the formal complaint a year later. We considered the period up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response in April 2021.
The residents mentions that their physical and mental health has been detrimentally affected by the landlord’s action. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents’ comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The leak into the flat below and concerns about operatives visiting the property without appropriate PPE

The evidence is clear that there was a leak into the flat below the residents’ property. The landlord has a statutory duty to investigate and resolve this repair; the residents have an obligation under their tenancy agreement to give the landlord access for any resulting investigations and repairs.
This events complained about happened during a period when, for the most part, there was a pandemic and lockdowns. However, this did not free the landlord from its obligations and repairs continued albeit with measures in place to protect residents and operatives. We note, however, that landlords usually only carried out emergency repairs during periods of lockdown.
There is differing evidence about the extent of the leak into the flat below – in October 2020 the leak was described as an “emergency leak” and in January 2021 it was described as an intermittent “slow leak”. (However, we note the possibility that the rate of the leak fluctuated.) Nor was there evidence that the leak came from the residents’ flat; although we have seen evidence that the landlord considered other options and, after investigation, found a neighbouring property was not the source of the leak. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord focussed on the resident’s flat to try to resolve matters.
As this was a plumbing issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this as an urgent repair in line with the repair guidelines in the tenancy handbook. It is evident that the repair was not straightforward and the landlord’s initial investigations in December 2019 did not identify the cause of the leak. It was therefore reasonable that it carried out further investigative work which it decided would involve the removal of tiles and a panel in the bathroom of the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord was unsuccessful in gaining access to the property from early February to early April 2020; and it appears that the property was empty from mid-March 2020 as the household had left London due to the risks to their health as a result of COVID-19.
The issue of this leak was raised again by the neighbour in September 2020 and, at the end of that month, the landlord agreed to put its investigations on hold due to the residents’ health. That was on condition that, if the damage to the flat below worsened, it would take action. That was a reasonable step to take given it had had recent sight of the leak into the flat below and it is reasonable to presume that the rate and spread of the leak was taken into account when reaching that decision.
However, a month later the landlord wrote to the residents saying that the leak was an “emergency” and that they should allow urgent access. This was a result of further contact from the neighbour. The letter referred to “extensive onsite investigations”. Given its recent decision to take no action for the moment, it have been helpful if the landlord had explained to the residents why this was now an emergency.
The landlord was again unable to gain access and, at the end of December 2020, it cancelled the work until the residents had been vaccinated. In January 2021 it decided not to seek an injunction for access but to wait for the residents to have their vaccinations. Given its confirmation that it was a slow leak that decision was reasonable. The letter received soon after from the residents’ GP about the vulnerabilities of the residents and likely vaccination dates confirmed that decision given the vaccinations were likely in February 2021.
However, the evidence does not suggest this decision was passed to the landlord’s solicitor who continued to give the impression the landlord would seek an injunction in its correspondence later that month. The landlord’s apparent failure to communicate this decision to its solicitor is a service failure. The evidence is not clear on whether or not any legal action was taken.
In its complaint handling, the landlord explained that it had an obligation to investigate the leak and the residents had an obligation to allow it access. It explained that it would take legal action if access was not given and gave such a written warning. That was reasonable in the circumstances to make clear what the resident’s obligations were in relation to allowing access.
The evidence we have considered does not confirm whether the leak has been resolved or where the leak came from. An order has been made for the landlord to follow this up to resolve matters if it has not done so already.
Turning to the issue of PPE, it is evident from the information we have seen that the pandemic caused a great deal of distress and anxiety for the residents especially given their vulnerabilities. The contingency planning document also made it clear what protection operatives should wear when attending properties where residents were self-isolating. The repairs log has many entries reminding staff members of this, and we have seen correspondence between the landlord and its contractors where reminders were given about the requirement to wear full PPE also.
In relation to the residents’ concerns about operatives not wearing full PPE, the landlord apologised in its complaint handling for its staff failing to wear full PPE as it had assured them. It also reassured the residents that they had been within their rights to not allow its operatives access without full PPE. It gave assurances that it would up the issue of the importance of wearing full PPE with its repair managers and contractors. That was reasonable action to take to try to ensure such full PE compliance in the future.
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.
While the landlord expressed its disappointment with its contractors who did not wear full PPE and apologised for that, it did not consider the full impact on the residents – the frustration, distress and loss of trust in the landlord and its operatives. Accordingly, financial compensation of £300 is appropriate here for the impact on the residents by the landlord’s failure to wear full PPE in line with its assurances.

Complaint handling

While there were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, it informed the residents of these delays and gave new deadlines by which it would respond by. That was appropriate action to take.
The resident raised concerns that the property manager who was part of their complaint was involved in the stage one. The landlord explained that, as this manager had been dealing with the repair, he had provided details of the background to the case. We note the property manager was not named in the complaint and therefore find it reasonable that the landlord had input from such staff members. We note further that the stage one response was signed off by a senior repairs manager which was appropriate to ensure oversight of the issues raised.
The stage one response referred to a visit to the property on 30 April 2020. The residents dispute that visits as they were away at the time. The information provided by the landlord (including the repair log) did not give details of a visit that day. This therefore appears to be a mistake; the landlord should ensure that the facts in its complaint responses are evidence-based.
The residents raised new issues when escalating the complaint. The landlord advised the residents to raise these matters as a new complaint when it acknowledged the escalation request. It would have been good customer service for the landlord to have set up a new complaint itself at this stage given it was clear they were unhappy with the service received, rather than reporting a repair or ASB.
In our communication with the residents, it appears the final complaint response to the other issues raised is still outstanding. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to raise these matters as a fresh complaint and deal with them in line with its complaint policy. It is open to the residents to bring these issues to the Ombudsman once they have received a final response; we can also consider the landlord’s complaint handling of those issues.
We note further that the landlord signposted the residents to the incorrect Ombudsman in its final complaint response. An order has been made for the landlord to remind its complaint handling staff which matters should be referred to the Housing Ombudsman and which matters should be referred to the LGSCO.
There were service failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Financial redress of £150 is appropriate for the inconvenience caused by these failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to:
1. The residents’ concerns about its handling of a leak into the flat below as well as their concerns about operatives visiting the property without appropriate PPE.
2. The complaint.

Reasons

The landlord had an obligation to investigate and resolve the leak into the flat below; the resident had an obligation to allow access. The landlord took reasonable steps to balance this obligation along with the residents’ vulnerabilities during the pandemic. The landlord acknowledged its operatives had failed to wear full PPE on occasions when attending the property in line with its guidance and apologised for that. We found that financial compensation was appropriate for the impact of that on the residents.
There appeared to be an error in the stage one complaint response relating to a visit to the property on 30 April 2020 and the landlord signpost the resident to the wrong Ombudsman in its final complaint response. While these are minor errors, the impact on the residents warrants financial compensation.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £450 made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact of its operatives failing to wear PPE when visiting the property.
  2. £150 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
3. Ensure that it has taken action to resolve the leak into the flat below (if this is still outstanding). If this is outstanding, the landlord should write to the residents setting out what access is required, for what, and when.
4. Raise a fresh complaint to look at the new issues included in the escalation request of March 2021and deal with these in line with its complaint policy.