Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202123372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123372

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak into her property.
2. This service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in this investigation.

Background 

3. The resident became the leaseholder when she bought a 25% share of a first floor newly built flat, through the shared ownership scheme on 15 July 2015. The landlord at the time was a housing association which later merged with another housing association in April 2018, to become the landlord that is currently the freeholder.
4. There was evidence at the time the resident came to this Service, that she had been living with an unresolved leak in her property, for the past 6 years. A copy of an email from the resident showed that she had provided details of the leak to the landlord, in a list of defects, as requested for the defects inspection in September 2016. The list was emailed to the landlord and a hard copy left at the property for the inspection. The list mentioned a leak from the overflow from the flat above was causing external damage to her window frames. Pictures seen, show a very stained overflow pipe from the balcony above. The landlord omitted the leak in the defects it raised with the developer at the inspection. As a result the leak was not addressed in the rectification of build faults, by the developer at the end of the 12-month defects period.
5. The leak was coming through the residents ceiling. The property above the residents, was not managed by the landlord, this was a leasehold property, owned by an absentee landlord who was letting it privately using a managing agent.
6. The landlord emailed the resident on, 28 February 2017, and apologised for the time it was taking to resolve the leak from the balcony. It advised that a claim had been logged with the National House Building Council (NHBC) the previous year which was followed by a visit to the site with the developer, the NHBC and landlord. NHBC requested copies of the drawings and the developer despite daily chasing from the landlord, had not provided them, causing the delay in resolution. There landlord has no records of the claim made with the NHBC, which could have given an indication of structural defects found that might have contributed to the residents current issue. This is because the landlord is unable to access all records from prior to its amalgamation.
7. In June 2017, the landlords operatives found a fault with the balcony of the property above, the outlet was backflowing towards the balcony on the underside when it rained, which was part of the resident’s ceiling. It suggested dropping the gradient of the outlet to avert the problem. It noted the outlet pipe on the adjacent flat had broken off completely which would have the same impact of backflow on the underside of their balcony and ultimately into the resident’s property. A meeting had been arranged with the landlords surveyors and the developers on 16 June 2017, but there was no evidence this work was ever progressed. An email from the resident to the landlord 21 November 2022, confirmed it was not.
8. The length of time taken to resolve the leak (6 years total) has not been disputed by the landlord. The landlord has, since the internal complaint process (ICP), offered £250 for the time it took to resolve the issue.
9. The service failing of not administering the defects process appropriately is not disputed by the landlord, and the resident has since the ICP, been offered £250 compensation for this failing.

Scope

10. Part of the resident’s complaint to this Service was the landlord’s failure to address the leak with the developer in the defects process in 2016, which along with the landlords repeated failure to resolve had resulted in her living with an unresolved leak, (following rainfall) for a further 6 years.
11. As previously stated, this is not disputed by the landlord, however, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only consider issues brought to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time period, which is usually 6 months. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still “live”, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues becomes historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. The resident did not raise the issue as a formal complaint until early 2022.
12. This means that the action or inaction of the landlord in relation to the defects process and its historical response to the leak since 2016, cannot form part of this investigation, and will only be referenced in the report for context. The Ombudsman will however consider that the landlord was aware that the leak in the resident’s property had been ongoing for 6 years at the time she made her formal complaint.

Summary of events

13. The resident had first reported a leak in her property 6 years ago prior to the defects period expiring, and had been living with the issues since then.
14.  The resident contacted this Service at the end of January 2022, because she had, again been complaining to the landlord about the ongoing leak to her property and the landlord was not responding. At the point of contact the resident said she could only use half of her living room as a result of the leak and damage to the ceiling.
15. On 22 February 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the residents complaint about on-going leaks at the property, by 8 March 2022, or provide a copy of its response if had already provided one.
16. On 9 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, in summary it said:
    1. It apologised for the fact the resident had experienced a leak to her property following rainfall for over 6 years and despite a number of attendances from contractors it had still not been resolved.
    2. During a visit to her flat the resident had advised a water test had been completed by a contractor to the balcony above to establish if this was the cause, but nothing happened as a result.
    3. This could have suggested the leak was coming from elsewhere. It had discussed with her the use of thermal imaging equipment to further investigate.
    4. It had, had problems accessing the flat above, the resident was not a tenant of the landlord, but it had commenced legal proceeding and recently tracked down the management company currently responsible for the property and the tenant in residence.
    5. It apologised the thermal imaging specialist was unable to gain access the previous week, and acknowledged the resident had taken time off work to be there, it offered her £50 for the inconvenience. It was doing its best to gain access without litigation, but confirmed it would progress down this route if it had to. A further appointment was being arranged for the following week and it was trying to arrange a Saturday for the resident.
    6. It pointed out that the leak may not be from upstairs and could be from anywhere in the building.
    7. It also apologised for a failure in its communication, whilst it had been working to resolve the issue it accepted with the lack of information it may have appeared to the resident that nothing had been done. It committed to keeping her updated with the survey.
17. The resident contacted this Service on 10 April 2022, advising she had not received the £50 compensation awarded and 2 appointments had been arranged since, that had been unsuccessful with no further contact to advise what would happen next. She had tried to escalate her complaint to the senior manager, but had failed to get a response. She had also contacted customer services, who repeatedly advised that she would receive a response in 24hrs, but no one ever responded. She told this Service she felt trapped in a flat where the service charges and rent were increasing with a major building fault the landlord would not fix, and she did not know what to do.
18. On 8 June 2022, this service passed on the above complaint to the landlord, instructing it to escalate to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, and provide a response within 20 working days.
19. On 21 June 2022, the landlords complaints investigator emailed the resident to advise the contractor was having difficulty procuring the necessary replacement doors and parts needed for the property above. This meant obtaining a definitive date for completion was not possible. It had engaged two other contractors to provide quotes for “competitiveness and comparative parts procurement speed”.
20. On the 14 July 2022, the landlord completed its stage 2 investigation which involved the case being looked at by an independent manager and a complaint reviewer. In summary the landlord said:
    1. It was sorry to acknowledge the “undue amount of time” the resident had lived with the leak; it was not the service it hoped to provide.
    2. A specialist leak detection and building pathology contractor had identified two issues that had caused the leak. The balustrade sealings had decayed due to wear and tear and were causing water ingress and an historically damaged bent door frame on the flat above. The cause of this was unidentified, but most likely a one-off heavy impact. It was unknown whether this was the condition at sale or caused by the neighbours.
    3. As a result it concluded that it could not proceed with a “making good claim” under the insurance. It had agreed however, to pay the making good costs itself, for repairing the damage internally to the resident’s flat. Two quotes were required to progress this, which the landlord offered to provide for the resident.
    4. The same contractor was to carry out water testing 3 August 2022, and the door replacement contractors were on notice for 5 August should any snagging be required.
    5. It could not explain why communication had been poor. It stated the manager had not responded to the residents emails, as they had delegated to the Property Management Officer (PMO), but it was not clear why the PMO had not responded. For unanswered customer queries, it was recommended it was raised on the residents account portal as a complaint. It apologised and said it had raised the importance of making delegation transparent to the team, but suggested taking the complaint re staff, through the complaints policy.
    6. Although the increasing staff turnover was not part of the original complaint, it was apparent it was an issue in the residents case, so it was happy to comment. It said it was unable to control staff turnover, the majority was for personal reasons, such as career progression, moving home or change of career. It was trying to mitigate the impact on residents with its digital offer of an online portal.
    7. Its findings were:
       1. There had been failure to progress repairs in a timely manner and as a result, a failure to identify how the bent door frame occurred and appropriate action.
       2. Inconvenience and stress of having to chase for momentum on the repair project from both frontline and senior management.
       3. It offered compensation the maximum for inconvenience for both issues totalling £500.
    8. As a structural communal repair, it said the works were service chargeable, however it acknowledged its responsibility to have investigated sooner and agreed to pay for 50% of the repair works. This supports the feedback of the independent reviewer who noted the Stage 1 response seemed inadequate in regard to compensation offered and meaningful timelines provided.
    9. Recommended actions were:
       1. To provide an update to the resident on 4 August 2022 (after catching up with the water damage contractor).
       2. Ensure a plan of next steps is clearly outlined, ideally with fixed timelines if possible.
       3. The resident was to confirm if they would procure their own 2 quotes or were happy to proceed with the landlords procured ones.
       4. Any concerns with staff performance was to be logged on the customer portal as a complaint, to ensure visibility for senior management to pick up staff performance quickly.
       5. Issues to be promptly addressed and referred to senior management if junior staff are unaware what to do, to ensure progress.

Post Complaint Process

21. The water damage specialist, provided a specification and estimate for works to resolve the leaks, which involved repairs to the above balcony balustrades and to fit a new drainage outlet plumbed to hang over the stones, on the roof away from the residents property. To seal the junctions around the new outlet and re-plumb the existing outlet away from the residents property.
22. There were initial delays to progressing the work as a structural engineer needed to be consulted for approval before work could progress. When it was approved there was a problem with the contractors risk assessment and method statement, adjustments had to be made before health and safety approval could be given.
23. The specified balcony works were completed on 16 November 2022. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to state that she could still hear water dripping above the ceiling.
24. The contractor returned on Saturday 26 November 2022, and carried out a hydrogen gas test, it said, if the work completed was still the cause of a leak, the gas would have escaped through the balustrade posts. It did not, and no other defect was identified.
25. On 18 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she could still hear dripping above the ceiling, although it did sound like it was in a slightly different place. There were no leaks into her property just the sound of dripping.
26. In January 2023, the landlord noted, there was several communications between the landlord and the resident about the issue. The landlord was awaiting further instruction from its surveyor, the specialist contractor had exhausted all their options. The surveyor advised that this would have to be dealt with as an ongoing process of elimination. A new contractor was allocated to the case on 1 February 2023.
27. The new contractor has been in regular contact with the resident since to try to detect and eliminate any further causes of the dripping.
28. Final application to the balcony was completed on Friday 21 April 2023, Water testing was to be carried out Friday 28th April 2023.
29. A further offer of compensation was offered to the resident by the landlord in August 2023. This included, in addition to the previous £500 offered, £250 for “the service failure that the issue was reported in 2016 and was not correctly dealt with under the defects policy”. As well as £250 for the amount of time the issue has taken to resolve.
30. Internal remedial works were completed October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s Legal and Policy Context

31. The lease states that the resident (leaseholder) is required to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition (except in respect of damage by risks insured under clause 5.2 -Insure, unless not covered due to an act or default of the leaseholder).
32. The landlord is required to maintain, repair, redecorate or renew and improve:
    1. The load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building
    2. The roof, foundations, joists, and external walls
    3. The external doors, windows, window frames and associated equipment and fitments except glass.
    4. All doors and window frames, not forming part of the demise of any other premises in the building. All parts of the building which are not the responsibility of any leaseholder.
    5. The landlord is, if required by the leaseholder to enforce tenants covenants which are or may be entered into by the tenants or other flats in the building so far as they affect the Premises provided.
33. The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, implied a covenant in the lease on the landlord that the dwelling is:
    1. fit for human habitation at the time the lease is granted or otherwise created or, if later, at the beginning of the term of the lease, and
    2. will remain fit for human habitation during the term of the lease.
34. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, which includes any form of damp.
35. The landlord has a responsive repair policy, which states that the landlord’s tenancy and leasehold agreements set out the contractual responsibilities for both parties (landlord and residents). The policy commits to keeping residents informed about progress with their repairs through an agreed channel convenient to them including telephone, text messaging and email. The policy also sets out its repair timeframes, which are as follows.
    1. Emergency repairs aim to attend within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. All further work also completed within 24 hours within reason.
    2. Routine repair completed within 20 working days from date of report.
    3. Emergency defects, the majority of its contracts aim to have all major services restored within 24 hours.
36. For new build properties its responsive repairs policy states, most works carried out as part of new build or improvement contracts are covered by a defects liability period (DLP). This starts from the date of practical completion for the building or block, the defects period can be between 6 and 24 months. Residents should report repairs for new or improved properties to their local offices, in the normal way. Where it is a defect with the building, the repair will be passed to the original contractor. Some defects, such as design, product failure or workmanship faults happen after the liability period but within a 6 or 12-year limitation period. Where it can be demonstrated that it is a latent defect, the original contractor may be liable to carry out remedial works or exercise warranties offered by the NHBC (National House Building Council) to carry out works for some elements. We will ensure that the impact on the resident is as minimal as possible whilst we are establishing liability and seeking recovery from the relevant party.
37. The landlord has a “leaks affecting ceiling” procedure. It requires that all leaks going through ceilings must be raised as an emergency repair even if containable. If the leak is coming from another property or is affecting another property, the landlord will need to contact those residents and raise a job against their property. A contractor will attend to stop the leak and the job will remain open until follow-on and remedial works are carried out.
38. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints will be investigated and responded to within 10 working days, detailing the timescales for any actions. Requests to escalation of stage 2 of the complaints process should be in a reasonable timeframe (20 days). The review will be carried out by a manager not previously involved in the decision, as well as another independent manager in the organisation. A response will be provided within 20 working days. The policy requires that to fully investigate and resolve complaints they should be made within a reasonable period. This would normally be within six months of the matter occurring, although in exceptional circumstances we may consider a complaint outside of this timescale.
39. The landlords compensation and goodwill gestures policy, highlights its commitment to acknowledging that it will compensate its residents where it has failed to meet service standards. It commits to:
    1. Ensure that residents are compensated fairly where they have been distressed or inconvenienced.
    2. Use its discretion to compensate and support residents where they have experienced financial hardship because of a service failure (based on evidence provided where necessary).
    3. Consider goodwill gestures to residents, where they have not been able to provide a service that is in line with our policies and procedures.
    4. It will not compensate where it is not responsible and will encourage residents to contact their insurers.
40. The policy has a compensation award guide set out in the table below:

41. The landlord does have a loss of room compensation facility in its repairs related compensation section of its policy, but it will not compensate for the loss of rooms or facilities where a property is owned, but compensation can be received where there has been a service failure when rectifying the issues.

Findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak into her property.

42. In accordance with the lease, the landlord had a repairing obligation to investigate and fix any reported leak into the resident’s property.
43. Repairs that are a landlord’s responsibility, once reported, should be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Whilst there is no statutory guidance on “reasonable time”, the landlord has set out what it considers reasonable in its repairs policy target response times. The landlords “leaks affecting ceilings” protocol, classifies that all leaks through ceilings are treated as an emergency. Its repairs policy commits to dealing with emergency repairs and emergency defects in 24 hours. There was no evidence from the landlord that it had responded to the reports from the resident within its specified timescale.
44. The Ombudsman recognises the cause of a leak is not always easily identifiable, and a process of elimination can be required before the actual cause is detected. This inevitably has to be taken into account on the length of any reasonable timeframe. If the landlord is pro-actively investigating, and acts in a timely manner on recommendations of actions to take, this would be considered within a reasonable time. Evidence indicated it was not a problem identifying the cause that had been the delay, rather that the landlord had not adopted the pro-active approach required.
45. By the landlord’s own admission it had failed to address the leak in 6 years. We are not investigating matters that occurred that far back (2016), but if it had actively investigated the cause, as it should have, it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would have made some headway in that amount of time, in either eliminating or detecting probable causes. However, its stage 1 response gave no indication that it had. No previous actions or investigations were referred to, other than a water test, which was information it had gathered from the resident, which was not reasonable.
46. Following the resident’s formal complaint, and this Service’s intervention, the landlord took a more proactive approach to the problem. It commissioned a thermal imaging specialist to investigate the leak, which was appropriate. However, this course of action could have been taken by the landlord at a much earlier stage, it should not have taken the intervention of the Ombudsman for the residents repair issues to be investigated and progressed properly.
47. Once the thermal imaging specialist was commissioned, there were further delays. This was because the specialist needed access to the flat above, and there were problems getting hold of the neighbour to gain access. As the neighbouring property was not managed by the landlord, the delays caused by not gaining entry to the property was not within the landlord’s control. It would, however, be reasonable to expect the landlord to keep the resident informed; its stage 1 response acknowledged that it did not. It apologised for this failing and committed to keeping her updated going forward, which was reasonable.
48. However, having made this commitment, the resident requested this Service’s assistance again, because two further inspections had been unsuccessful, and the landlord was not communicating with her or advising her what the next steps would be. Integral to the effectiveness of a landlord’s complaint process is the ability to learn and improve. The fact that the landlord’s communication with the resident, after its stage 1 response, remained poor, demonstrated that the landlord had not taken any learning from its failings and as a result did not improve its service.
49. It was evident however that the landlord did work proactively to overcome the access problems. The landlord issued court proceedings against the absentee landlord, but aware that the court process in itself would cause considerable time delay, it simultaneously spent time, tracing the owner and their managing agent to resolve the access issue sooner and without the need for litigation. This was reasonable considering the extensive delay in resolution the resident had already experienced.
50. At the time of the resident’s stage 2 complaint response on 14 July 2022, the landlord’s specialist thermal imaging contractor had identified that the balustrade sealings on the balcony of the property above had decayed due to wear and tear and an historically damaged bent door frame on the flat above were causing water ingress. Post complaint information identified that works were not completed for a further 4 months. The Ombudsman is aware that further works were identified, requiring approval from a structural engineer and a problem occurred with the contractor’s risk assessment. However, the landlord was aware this had been ongoing at this point, for 7 years. As such, there is an expectation by the Ombudsman that the repairs would have been actioned by the landlord with the utmost urgency. It was not reasonable that these two issues delayed resolution by a further 4 months.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in this investigation.

51. The Ombudsman introduced a new Complaint Handling Code in October 2021, which was amended in October 2022. The code sets out requirements for member landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
52. A requirement of the code is that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The Code defines a complaint as amongst other things, an expression of dissatisfaction, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, as does the landlords complaint handling policy. The resident advised this service in January 2022, that despite making complaints to the landlord about the ongoing leak, her concerns were not addressed. This service had to instruct the landlord to formally acknowledge the residents complaint in February 2022, and provide a response within a reasonable timeframe. This was a failing in the landlords complaint handling procedure. The landlord should have taken a formal complaint from the resident earlier, in order to provide a resolution quickly, failure to do so was not compliant with the Code or the landlords complaints policy.
53. Evidence showed that this service had to instruct the landlord again, at stage 2 of its complaint procedure, to acknowledge and escalate the residents complaint, this demonstrated that the landlord had not taken any learning from this Services intervention and its earlier complaint handling failure, which was not appropriate and again in breach of the Code and its complaint handling policy.
54. The landlords compensation and goodwill gestures policy states that a complaint should be made within a period of six months of occurrence. In acknowledging the residents experience of the last “six years” and the “undue amount of time” she had had a leak in her property in its complaint responses, it used its ability in exceptional circumstances to consider a complaint outside of this timescale, which was reasonable.
55. The landlords compensation and goodwill gestures policy also commits to compensate residents where it has failed to meet service standards. This had been a serious failure in service delivery over an extended period of time, and caused the resident a significant level of distress and inconvenience. While the stage 1 complaint response apologised to the resident for the experience of a leak for 6 years, it did not offer any compensation for this as its policy allowed.
56. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 review that the compensation offered in the stage 1 response was inadequate. It offered her £250 for the failure to progress repairs in a timely manner and £250 for the stress and inconvenience for having to chase the repairs. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer financial redress, and this was at the highest end of the landlords compensation scale, the offer was considered low, within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significantly adverse impact on a resident for a sustained period of time, and was not a proportionate offer. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. In exceptional circumstances, “where there have been multiple failures” within its compensation policy the landlord had the ability to offer higher levels of compensation if approved by a manager. It would have been appropriate in this case where the landlord was aware the leak had not been resolved in six years, for the landlord to have utilised this ability.
57. The code also requires that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Part of the residents complaint regarding the leak in her property, was the failure of the landlord to address the issue when it had the opportunity in the defects period, 6 years earlier. This issue while referenced as part of the complaint, was not actually addressed in the response.
58. In addition the landlord pointed out in its complaint response that the works required to resolve the problem, were considered a “structural communal repair”. As such they were “service rechargeable” which meant the resident would incur a charge for the works. However it acknowledged that it had a responsibility to have investigated sooner which was reasonable, and offered to pay 50% of the cost. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was not happy about this, however under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that concern the level of rent or service charges. The resident can take advice on this issue from the Leaseholder Advisory Service or go to the 1st Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue the matter.
59. The landlord did agree in its complaint response as part of the resolution to pay for repairing the damage internally, in the residents flat, and offered to assist her in obtaining the two quotes necessary to progress this, to save the resident the stress and inconvenience which was reasonable.
60. Post complaint information received, identified that the landlord made a further offer of compensation which was accepted by the resident on 23 August 2023. The offer consisted of £250 for the failure to correctly deal with the issue under the defects policy (2016), and £250 for the amount of time it had taken to resolve. The Ombudsman would not seek to discourage a landlord from reflecting on its decisions and increase offers of redress, but the purpose of a complaint procedure is to instil fairness, consistency and encourage earliest resolution. There was no evidence that this review was something the landlord would do consistently, and the landlord could have made a more appropriate offer at an earlier stage as part of its complaint process. Offering additional redress outside of its complaints procedure rather defeats the purpose and objectives of the complaints process. The revised offer, particularly for “the amount of time it had taken to resolve” was again considered low and not proportionate to the acknowledged time taken to resolve of 7 years (by 2023).

Determination (decision)

61. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak into her property.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

63. The landlord failed to observe a number of its policies, which could have bought the issue of the leak to an earlier conclusion. There were unacceptable and un-necessary delays in investigating and addressing the fault, culminating in significant detriment to the resident who had to live with water penetration, damp patches and the sound of dripping water following rainfall, for an acknowledged period of 6 years.
64. Despite the landlord having a complaints policy that aligned with the Housing Ombudsman’s code, it failed to observe both in its handling of the residents complaint. This included failing to take or escalate the residents’ complaints without the intervention of this service and not responding to all aspects of the residents complaint at stage 2. Despite acknowledging significant service failings in the course of both of its complaint investigations, that had caused prolonged and significant detriment to the resident, it did not offer the resident reasonable redress, that was proportionate to the failings identified or within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a serious long-term impact on a resident in accordance with its compensation policy guidelines. While the Ombudsman is aware the landlord increased its offer after the internal complaints process, this late action does not support key principles of the Code, in ensuring complaints are resolved promptly and fairly.

Orders and recommendations

65. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord apologises to the resident.
66. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord pays, in addition to the compensation the landlord has already offered (£1000) a total sum of £1200 made up as follows:
    1. £600 for the long-term impact and service failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents reports of a leak.
    2. £600 for the service failings identified in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.
67. The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks the landlord initiates refresher training for all the relevant staff on the complaint handling process and revised complaint handling code, and provides this service with a copy of its training plan and training materials.