Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202119458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119458

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

8 May 2024

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. handling of the resident’s application for a housing transfer;
2. record keeping;
3. handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of his property;
4. handling of the resident’s associated 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 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a housing transfer.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident wanted to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation on health grounds. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
Since the resident’s rehousing request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint would be more appropriately considered by the LGSCO, as the resident was advised when he brought his complaint to this Service.
In addition to the resident’s application for a housing transfer on health grounds, he also requested an emergency move on the basis that he considered his property to be structurally unsafe. The Ombudsman has considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint as part of the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of his property.
Any references in this report to the resident’s transfer application on health grounds are included only for the purpose of context.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy to a 4 bedroom house, which began on 26 March 2007. The landlord is a council. For the purposes of this report, the housing directorate of the council is referred to as ‘the landlord’. All other service areas of the council are referred to as ‘the local authority’ (LA).
The resident has described himself as elderly, and that he, and other members of his household suffer with mobility, and health issues. The landlord told this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
Many of the resident’s contacts with the landlord and this Service were made on his behalf by his daughter. For the purposes of this report both the resident, and his daughter are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident made 2 previous related complaints to the landlord in December 2019, and March 2020. The complaints mainly concerned the landlord’s staff conduct, and the resident’s housing transfer application, but also referred to their property subsidence concerns. The key historical points of the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident were as follows:
1. It confirmed that structural monitoring of the resident’s property was undertaken from 2000 to 2003, and that remedial subsidence work was completed during the year prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy in 2007.
2. It stated that “step cracks” had been reported in the resident’s downstairs bathroom in 2016, for which a large nearby tree had been identified as the likely cause. It said that it had removed the tree, and undertaken further works to his property.
3. It advised that that it had completed a drainage survey of the resident’s property in March 2020. It said that no defects had been identified, and that it was assured that the property was safe.

Lettings policy

The landlord’s policy stated that the majority of repairs were carried out without the need for the resident to temporarily move home, but acknowledged that, “there will be circumstances such as subsidence or other structural damage when the tenant must be moved for their own safety, either because of the extent of the work or vulnerability of the tenant”. It stated that such moves would only be arranged after a decision had been made that a move is necessary.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. The policy said that where the landlord was unable to meet those timescales, it would explain the reasons why to the resident, and write to them again within a further 10 working days.
The policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint explained that for a resident to request an escalation to stage 2, they must be able to do one of the following:
1. Show that the decision is based on a factual error.
2. Show that “the council” has not considered a significant piece of evidence.
3. Provide new evidence to support the complaint.
Since the time of the resident’s complaint the LA has updated its policy, which now states that, “Specifically for housing complaints, the council will not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint to stage 2, and will progress a complaint to stage 2 if it is not resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction”.

Summary of events

On 12 January 2021 a structural engineer who had been engaged by the resident wrote to the landlord with the findings of his inspection of the resident’s property. The engineer’s report stated his view that 1 particular crack presented an “imminent high risk”, and that the resident’s property must “be evacuated as soon as possible”.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord’s appointed structural engineer issued its report of the inspection of the resident’s property, which it had undertaken on 17 March 2021. The report noted that the inspection was limited by what it described as an extreme amount of storage inside the resident’s property. Its recommendations included the removal of the “excessive storage”, monitoring of the property movement for a period of 1 to 2 years, and various remedial repairs to be completed following the monitoring period.
There then followed a substantial gap in the evidence seen by this Service until the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2021. They said that their property subsidence was putting their family’s lives at risk, and was causing considerable stress. They said that the resident was also struggling with the 6 steps that led up to the entrance of their property. They stated that they had provided the landlord with their own engineer’s report as proof of the subsidence, and asked for an immediate property move. The resident also contacted this Service about the same matters.
During the first half of December 2021 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident’s property was, “in a satisfactory condition for the tenant to remain in occupation”, and that there was no need for a decant.
2. It referred to its structural engineer’s report from April 2021. It noted the recommendations for a 1 to 2 year monitoring period before undertaking the identified remedial works to the resident’s property, but that there had been “no one available to monitor for structural movement”.
3. It highlighted that the report had noted that the resident’s property contained a very large amount of belongings, and that works could not be completed without this being reduced.
4. It confirmed that in April and May 2021, its housing manager (HM) had been made aware of the issue with the volume of belongings in the resident’s property. It asked whether a joint visit by its HM and repairs team could be arranged to agree a plan with the resident to reduce the volume of their belongings, and allow works to take place.
The landlord told this Service that it wrote to the resident on 17 December 2021 to arrange an appointment for its joint visit, but that the resident refused access. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter, or any related records, but it is referred to in the landlord’s complaint response to the resident sent 3 days later.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident, which in large part dealt with those matters outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As a part of this, but also in response to the resident’s comments regarding his difficulty with his property’s steps, it gave advice regarding its occupational therapy (OT) process, and how the resident could request an OT assessment. The landlord’s key points regarding the resident’s structural concerns were as follows:
1. It stated that it had followed all of the recommendations made by its external structural engineer, and that the resident’s property remained “in a satisfactory condition” to occupy.
2. It confirmed that, “there is currently no urgent need for you and your family to transfer due to structural issues”.
3. It said that it had contacted the resident 3 days earlier to arrange an inspection to support them ahead of the structural engineer’s recommended works, but that they had refused access.
4. It explained the criteria of its policy that the resident must meet if they remained dissatisfied, and wished to escalate their complaint.
On 3 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of its process. The majority of the resident’s letter related to those matters outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, but also repeated their concerns about the structural issues.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord told the resident that, as they had not provided any new information, its position remained unchanged and it had not escalated their complaint to stage 2. The landlord reiterated its position regarding the resident’s property having no structural issues that would necessitate an urgent move. It said that it was happy to carry out a further inspection of the condition of the resident’s property if they wished, and asked that they suggest convenient dates. The landlord told this Service that the resident did not respond to its offer.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 26 May 2022 this Service wrote to the resident to explain why the housing transfer application elements of their complaint were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and referred them to the LGSCO.
In October 2022 the landlord confirmed to this Service that the resident had completed its complaint process. Over the following months the resident remained in contact with this Service, and expressed their wish for their complaint to be investigated. This Service again advised the resident of the elements of their complaint that were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
During April, and May 2023 the landlord made, and rearranged, appointments to visit the resident in line with their availability. On 6 July 2023 the landlord’s internal email stated that it had visited the resident the previous day. It said that the resident had decided to relocate to another part of the country, and had requested that their housing application be cancelled.
In providing its contemporaneous evidence to this Service for this investigation, the landlord also provided related commentary. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that it did not know whether the volume of belongings in the resident’s property had been reduced to a level that would “allow for meaningful crack monitoring data”, but that its attempts to address this with the resident “appeared to have been largely unsuccessful”.
2. It explained that its department that had undertaken the movement monitoring of the resident’s property prior to their tenancy beginning had been closed some years ago. It said that it could now only do this via external procurement, and that the monitoring recommended by the structural engineer in April 2021 had “not been achieved”.
3. It stated that the remedial works that the structural engineer had recommended be undertaken following the monitoring period had been passed to its repairs team to complete, but that the resident had refused access.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues, and provide effective tailored services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate, and contemporaneous records including a resident’s vulnerabilities, reported property issues, and its subsequent response, actions, and rationale.
This Service asked the landlord to provide various records relevant to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of their property. The landlord provided some records, and emails, but much of the information was in the form of a more recently written summary. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s summary expressed its own uncertainty of the actions it had taken, and the current situation with the resident’s property.
As such, during this investigation, the landlord was again asked to provide the relevant records, and reminded of the need for these to be contemporaneous. The landlord did provide this Service with further dates, and explanations. However, much of this detail was again in the form of current narrative, rather than the contemporaneous information needed to allow for an evidence based investigation.
The landlord’s structural engineer issued its report of its inspection of the resident’s property to the landlord on 27 April 2021. The report noted the need for the landlord to address what it described as the “excessive storge” in the resident’s property. It recommended a 1 to 2 year property movement monitoring period, followed by various remedial works. As is considered in the assessment below, the Ombudsman has seen little contemporaneous evidence of any related actions taken by the landlord until after the resident made their complaint 7 months later.
The resident’s housing transfer application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, but it is of note that it was being made on the grounds of ill health. The landlord was aware that the resident was elderly, that his mobility issues gave him difficulties using the steps to his property, and that he and other members of his household suffered with health issues. As such, it is of further concern that the landlord told this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident or his household.
Aside from providing the landlord with a ready means to evidence its actions to this Service, it is also reasonable to conclude that its poor record keeping contributed to some of the service failings detailed below. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping, and has made an order to this regard.

Structural concerns

As above, the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint has been hampered by the landlord’s poor record keeping. Nevertheless, while this investigation is focused on events since the start of 2021, and the resident’s most recent complaint, it is clear that the resident had been expressing their structural safety concerns to the landlord for several years prior.
It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the view of its structural engineer, and qualified staff, with regards to the safety of the resident’s property. Nonetheless, the photographs from inside the resident’s property depicted substantial cracking, also referred to in the engineer’s report, and as such the resident’s safety fears were understandable.
The landlord’s structural engineer’s report in April 2021 provided it with clear recommendations for the resident’s property. It described the “essential” need for both the movement monitoring of the resident’s property, and the reduction of their household storage. It is therefore of concern that the landlord has been unable to evidence that it acted upon or considered those recommendations, or offered safety assurances to the resident, until after he had made his complaint, and the intervention of this Service, 7 months later.
Following this, the landlord made 2 belated attempts to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property. It is of further concern that when these proved unsuccessful, the landlord appeared to accept that it would not gain access, and took no further action towards the engineer’s “essential” monitoring, or storage volume recommendations. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of their property.
The Ombudsman does not dispute the professional status of the structural engineer who sent his inspection report of the resident’s property to the landlord on 12 January 2021. However, it is noted that the report was not headed with a company name, and did not include the engineer’s qualifications, nor otherwise appear in the format expected of a structural engineer’s report. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to respond to the concerns raised about the resident’s property, by commissioning its own structural engineer’s report.
The engineer’s report, issued to the landlord on 27 April 2021, included recommendations regarding the volume of belongings in the resident’s property, and the need for a monitoring period followed by remedial works. As above, it is of concern to the Ombudsman that the next relevant contemporaneous evidence provided by the landlord was not until after the resident made his complaint on 23 November 2021. The resident had been expressing his safety concerns for some considerable time, and the landlord’s apparent lack of meaningful action or progress would have significantly added to his anxiety.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s internal emails discussed the situation with the resident’s property, and highlighted the resident’s request for an emergency transfer. The landlord referred to the engineer’s report, and sought the opinion of its qualified staff in deciding that it was unnecessary to decant the resident. While much delayed, the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy.
The landlord said that on 17 December 2021 it had tried to arrange a joint visit to the resident by its housing and repairs teams, but that the resident had refused access. The landlord provided this Service with no evidence of this, but it is reasonable to conclude that it occurred, as the landlord referred to it in its complaint response to the resident 3 days later.
The landlord relayed its decision to the resident that there was no urgent need for him to move due to structural issues, in its stage 1 complaint response sent to him on 20 December 2021. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately considered in the assessment below. Nevertheless, given the resident’s significant and understandable safety concerns, and the landlord’s lengthy delay in addressing them, it would be expected that its response would have provided empathetic assurances.
Instead, the landlord’s somewhat stark advice to the resident, and misleading statement about it having followed the engineer’s recommendations (considered in the assessment below) did little to reassure him, as evidenced by his continued protestation, and concern. The landlord’s failure to provide appropriate assurances to the resident in a timely manner, would have added to his worry and distress, and was therefore unreasonable.
The only relevant contemporaneous evidence seen by the Ombudsman regarding the engineer’s monitoring recommendations, again mostly came from the landlord’s December 2021 internal emails. Those emails acknowledged the structural engineer’s recommendations from 8 months earlier, but stated that there had been “no one available to monitor for structural movement”. The landlord’s additional non-contemporaneous information provided to this Service explained the closure of its department that would have undertaken the monitoring, and only further stated that it had “not been achieved”.
As such the landlord was asked to provide evidence of its decision not to use an external resource to complete the recommended monitoring, or of its further consideration of the matter. The landlord responded to this Service that the volume of belongings in the resident’s property meant that, “any monitoring would have been futile”. It was unreasonable that the landlord was unable to provide any contemporaneous evidence of its relevant consideration or decision making, beyond its accepted inability to internally resource the recommended monitoring of the resident’s property.
The landlord’s December 2021 internal emails also noted that in April 2021, its housing manager was made aware that the volume of belongings in the resident’s property would impact its ability to undertake works. The landlord was again asked during this investigation for relevant contemporaneous evidence of its actions to this regard. The landlord’s response only pointed to its attempts to gain access in December 2021, and March 2022. The landlord provided a further summary of its actions in 2023, 14 months after the resident’s complaint had concluded. It was unreasonable that the landlord was unable to provide any evidence of its efforts to address the resident’s storage issues in the 8 month period between the engineer’s report, and its internal email discussion.
The landlord told this Service that its structural engineer’s recommended remedial works to the resident’s property had been passed to its repairs team to complete. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord had decided that the engineer’s recommended works were necessary, regardless of any monitoring outcome. The landlord further stated that the resident had refused access to their property for these works, but again failed to provide any relevant evidence.
The copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement provided to this Service was only 2 pages long, and did not detail the expected ‘tenant responsibilities’. This Service has also not seen a copy of the landlord’s repairs policy. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident would be required to allow access for essential works to their property, and that the landlord would have a process in place where this access was refused. As such, it is unreasonable that the landlord’s summary provided to this Service suggested that it had accepted it would not get the required access to the resident’s property. It is further unreasonable that the landlord has been unable to evidence any efforts it had made to address these access issues.
The Ombudsman has made orders with regard to any outstanding works, which also give consideration to any property access issues that the landlord may encounter.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was using the LA’s complaint policy, which contained escalation restrictions that were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has since updated its policy to allow residents to more easily escalate complaints to stage 2 of its process, in line with the Code.
Nevertheless, the landlord still failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy at that time, or with the Code. Furthermore, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The resident made their complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2021. The landlord’s policy stated that, where it was unable to meet its 10 working day response timeframe, it would write to the resident to explain the reason. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident until it issued its stage 1 response 19 working days later. As above, the resident had expressed their significant safety concerns, which would have been further compounded by the landlord’s delay.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 20 December 2021. It appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about their property’s steps, by explaining its OT process that could assist. However, aside from that, and as above, the landlord demonstrated little empathy towards the resident’s safety concerns, nor consideration of their vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s response made no acknowledgement of the delays in either its complaint handling, nor in its actions since receiving the engineer’s report 8 months earlier. As such the landlord was neither fair, nor attempted to but things right.
The landlord’s response stated that it had “followed all recommendations from our external structural engineer”. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may have been referring to previous recommendations and subsidence works, completed prior to the resident’s tenancy, and again in 2016. However, it was not clear that this was the intended meaning and, as above, the limited evidence provided suggested that the landlord had not acted upon any of the engineer’s April 2021 recommendations. The landlord’s statement was therefore, at the very least, misleading.
The landlord’s response referred to its attempt 3 days earlier to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property, and the resident’s access refusal. The resident’s complaint provided the landlord with the opportunity to put things right by empathising with their safety concerns, explaining the necessity of its intended actions, offering support, and making further efforts to agree access. The landlord’s failure to do any of this was neither reasonable, nor in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint on 3 March 2022. The landlord’s response to the resident on 15 March 2022, explained why it would not. As above, while the landlord may have acted in line with its policy, it failed to act in line with either the Code, or the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s escalation request did attempt to offer some assurance, and repeated its advice that there were no structural issues that would require them to move home. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a further visit to, “seek a second opinion about the condition of your property”. However, the onus was put onto the resident to instigate the visit, and it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord attempted to follow this up when the resident did not respond.
As above, the landlord did not recognise any of its failings in its handling of the resident’s structural concerns or complaint, and as such offered them no apology, nor compensation. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard, which considers all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had been raising their structural safety concerns to the landlord for some years, and that those concerns may be still ongoing. Nevertheless this investigation was based on the period assessed above, from January 2021 until March 2022. Following its receipt of the resident’s structural engineer’s report, the landlord acted appropriately in commissioning its own, which it received on 27 April 2021. As such, the compensation calculation below is based on the 46 week period between that time, and the resident concluding the landlord’s complaint process on 15 March 2022.
At the time that the landlord provided its information to this Service, the resident’s rent was £105.73 per week. The “substantial” cracking described by the landlord’s structural engineer, and the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with timely safety assurances would have severely curtailed their use and enjoyment of their property. The resident had also described the significant stress caused by their safety fears.
In light of the maladministration identified, an amount of £972.90 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact that the landlord’s failings had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their home (i.e. loss of amenities), being 20% of the resident’s rental liability, for the 46 week period explained above.
This amount is in addition to £200 awarded for the time, trouble, and distress that the resident experienced from the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. A total of £1172.90 compensation is therefore ordered.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a housing transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of his property;
3. handling of the resident’s associated complaint

Reasons

The resident’s housing transfer application complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It may be more appropriately considered by the LGSCO, which the resident was advised when they brought the matter to this Service.
The landlord’s poor record keeping meant that it was unable to provide this Service with much of the contemporaneous information necessary to allow for an evidence based investigation. The landlord told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, despite evidence that it was aware of his ill health, and mobility issues.
It is of concern to the Ombudsman that some 3 years after the landlord received the structural engineer’s report, it is unable to evidence that it has acted upon it, and appears uncertain of the current condition of the resident’s property. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to this, and towards the service failings described above.
The engineer’s report of the resident’s property made recommendations to the landlord in April 2021, including the “essential” need to reduce the volume of storage, and undertake movement monitoring. The landlord was unable to evidence that it had attempted to address either matter in the 8 month period between it receiving the report, and it responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was aware of the resident’s understandable safety fears, and its delays and lack of empathy would have added to his distress.
The landlord attempted to address these matters from December 2021, but said that it had encountered access issues to the resident’s property. The landlord was unable to evidence that it had made any efforts to address the access issues.
The resident’s complaint provided the landlord with the opportunity to offer them empathetic assurances to their safety concerns, and progress access to allow for the engineer’s recommendations. The landlord failed to take this opportunity, or acknowledge the failures and delays in its actions.
The orders below require that both parties play their part in taking these issues to a full resolution, including the resident ensuring that access to their property is provided in accordance with the landlord’s requirement to inspect.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks:
1. A senior manager writes to the resident to apologise for the identified failings in this report.
2. The landlord completes a full inspection of the resident’s property, including assessment of the storage volume, and any impact it has on its ability to complete works. It should write to the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the inspection to:
  1. Confirm the results of its inspection.
  2. Provide an action plan to address any outstanding works or storage volume issues, including timescales for these.
  3. Confirm the steps it intends to take to gain access to the resident’s property (in the event of access issues) including timescales.
3. The landlord pays the resident £1172.90 compensation, made up of:
  1. £972.90 for the impact its service failings and delays had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their home (i.e. loss of amenities);
  2. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings and delays identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within 8 weeks the landlord reviews its record keeping processes against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.