Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202311924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311924

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

29 July 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 response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
2. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident was granted an assured shorthold tenancy, which started on 18 January 2023.
The landlord has advised this Service that it was not aware of any disabilities or vulnerabilities in relation to the resident or her household.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2023 to report issues with the windows, including that the seals had rotted, the windows had gaps and they were draughty. She also said the windows did not lock.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 and stated that window locks and keys were her responsibility. The resident replied on the same day and questioned why the window locks were her responsibility. She asked the landlord to ensure its contractor contacted her regarding the rubbish in the garden, which she had previously reported.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 to confirm that its Repairs Officer would inspect the windows but that she was responsible for window locks and keys as per the repairs policy.
On 31 March 2023, the resident submitted an online complaint in which she stated the following:
1. She had just moved into the property and had found damaged locks on the windows.
2. The housing officer had taken various photos of outstanding repairs in the property on the day she signed the tenancy. Therefore, she believed the property had not met the landlord’s lettable standard.
3. There had been a debt of £70 on the gas/electricity meter which she had to pay before she put the heating on or use any electricity.
The landlord’s Repairs Officer inspected the property on 5 April 2023 and identified various issues with the windows, including defective gaskets, faulty hinges, draughts, defective handles and a broken trickle vent.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2023 in which she raised various issues, including:
1. While signing the tenancy agreement, she had reported various defects to the housing officer, including the window locks not being secure.
2. A property check was booked for a few weeks later and the resident was told to note any other defects she found. However, the officer did not attend and the resident had not received any explanation or apology.
3. Various operatives and contractors had attended the property without giving prior notice.
4. After moving into the property, the resident had found various issues, including seals missing from the windows and 3 large mounds of soil and rubbish in the garden.
5. When the resident moved in there were debts of £30 and £40 on the electricity and gas meters respectively. The resident contacted the landlord at the time but was told that it was a matter for the resident to resolve with the energy company. The resident confirmed that the gas and electricity company had reimbursed her for the £70 but she stated that she had borrowed the money to pay the debt, which she believed had not been her responsibility to pay.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 19 April 2023 to inspect various outstanding repairs, including “garden issues”. The deadline for the inspection was shown as 4 May 2023.
The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 21 April 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had arranged for one of its officers to inspect the various reported issues in the property on 28 April 2023.
2. The landlord stated that some of the issues had been resolved by its Voids team and any outstanding issues would be addressed at the inspection.
3. The landlord said it had been advised by British Gas that they had now refunded the £70 debt that had been on the meter when the resident moved in.
4. The landlord upheld the complaint and awarded £150 redress (£50 for service failure and £100 for time and trouble). The complaint was upheld because of the debt that had been left on the energy meters and any inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs to the windows.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2023 and reported that while clearing some of the garden on 20 April 2023, she found a syringe and therefore requested the landlord to clear the garden professionally to avoid any risks to her household.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2023 to ask whether there was any update regarding the windows as she had not heard anything since the inspection.
On 26 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and attached a photo of a knife she said her partner had found in the back garden.
The landlord’s Repairs Officer inspected the garden on 28 April 2023 and found there were piles of rubbish and mud that had been left by its Voids team. The officer noted in his report that the resident wanted the landlord to remove the mounds that had been left in the garden and she would then carry out any remaining work. The resident advised the officer that she had found a knife and a discarded syringe in the garden. The officer requested photos of the syringe but the resident said she had not taken any.
On 2 and 4 May 2023, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because:
1. The landlord had inspected the windows on 5 April 2023 and identified various defects to the windows, however, to date the resident had not received any updates regarding their repair or replacement. The officer who inspected the property again on 28 April 2023 had been unable to provide the resident with any updates regarding the windows.
2. One of the windows was off its hinges and was therefore insecure and a security risk as it could be opened from the outside. The repairs to the window were therefore urgent. She was also worried that her children could not escape through the window in the event of a fire.
3. The resident said there were mounds of rubbish in the garden when she moved in. Since submitting her original complaint, the resident said she had found a syringe and a large kitchen knife in the garden. The resident said she had emailed a picture of the knife to the landlord on 26 April 2023 but had not received a reply.
4. The resident said she had found a buried tyre and bags of rubbish in the garden and was unhappy that she could not let her children or dog into the garden because of the risks.
5. The resident stated that she was also unhappy that the officer who inspected the garden had not been aware of the purpose of his visit.
6. The resident said her initial complaint had been about the lack of updates from the landlord’s staff regarding the outstanding repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2023 to ask why she had not been contacted regarding the windows. She mentioned that her contents insurance was not currently valid because of the insecure windows.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order on 17 May 2023 to repair the bathroom window, which was said to be jamming and the living room window, which was described as “off its hinges”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2023 to advise that the Repairs Officer had inspected the property twice but had not provided the resident with any updates. The resident requested the landlord to pay for a skip and for someone to clear away all the mud and rubbish left in the garden by the previous tenant. She stated that the situation was causing her stress and she was still worried about her children and her dog using the garden.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2023 to advise her that it would need a further 10 working days to reply to her complaint. It said the reply would be sent by 15 June 2023. The landlord also advised her on 1 June 2023 that the garden would be levelled and any debris removed. In relation to the windows, it confirmed that a ‘planned renewal request’ had been submitted by the Repairs Officer after his visit and this had been accepted. The windows would therefore be renewed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 June 2023 with its stage 2 reply which stated:
1. The landlord’s Repairs Officer had inspected the property on 5 and 28 April 2023 regarding the windows and garden respectively.
2. Following the inspection on 5 April 2023, the officer had submitted a ‘planned renewal request’ form for all the windows in the property.
3. The original renewal had been due in 2040, however, these works had now been brought forward and were included in the programme for 2024-25. The landlord said it would contact the resident nearer the time to advise when the work would be done.
4. When the officer inspected the windows, no repairs were found to be necessary. However, since then the resident had reported 2 window repairs, which the landlord confirmed were booked in for 13 June 2023.
5. During the inspection of the garden on 28 April 2023, the officer confirmed that the condition of the garden failed to meet the landlord’s lettable standard. He subsequently arranged for the affected areas to be levelled off as requested by the resident.
6. The landlord had requested a quotation for the levelling off works and said it was committed to completing the work by 30 June 2023.
7. The landlord understood that the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated because she was dissatisfied with the Repairs Officer’s conduct. The landlord said the relevant manager had reviewed the officer’s conduct and found it to have been appropriate. However, the manager had highlighted the resident’s concerns to ensure there would be no future occurrences.
8. The landlord had reviewed how the stage one investigation had been conducted and was satisfied that investigating officer had contacted the relevant stakeholders. She had therefore followed the landlord’s procedure. Therefore, the landlord did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
9. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and felt that the £150 she had been offered at stage one was in line with its policy. Therefore, the landlord did not increase the level of compensation offered.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint on the same day (9 June 2023) and stated the following:
1. Her complaint had mainly been around the lack of communication rather than about an individual officer.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord’s repairs log states that the contractor completed the repairs to the bathroom and living room windows on 13 June 2023 by replacing the hinges and the handles.
The resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 30 June 2023 to say that no one had contacted her regarding the agreed work to the garden. She mentioned the knife, broken bottles and rubbish she had found in the grass. The resident also wrote on 9 and 18 July 2023 to chase the landlord regarding the work to the garden.
The landlord’s senior surveyor carried out a further inspection on 21 July 2023 and produced a detailed specification of the works needed in the garden. His report stated that the former tenant had buried waste, covered it with topsoil and re-seeded the area. The void handover photographs show the garden had been in reasonable condition, however, when digging the garden, the resident had uncovered the buried waste. The report stated that given the condition at the void handover, there would not have been a reason to dig the garden up. As such, its contractor would not have realised there was an issue. It was now clear that there was historic waste in this location.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2023 to confirm the outcome of its inspection it had carried out on the same day. The landlord confirmed it had placed 2 orders – one was to reglaze a rear window and the other was to remove the floor tiles outside the back door and replace with concrete. The landlord explained that its own landscapers were fully booked and therefore it had contacted external contractors. The landlord confirmed that it agreed to the resident carrying out improvement works to the garden and would contribute towards the reinstatement of the soil in the garden.
The landlord’s records state that the garden works were completed on 2 August 2023 and were post-inspected by a senior surveyor on the same day. The works to the garden had included excavation of the areas identified (to a depth of 6 inches) and the addition of concrete near the back door to level the area. The senior surveyor confirmed that the work had been completed to the necessary specification. It was also noted that the landlord would pay the resident £604.80 as a contribution for the topsoil that was needed to bring the garden back to the appropriate level.
During November and December 2023, the Ombudsman attempted to assist the resident and the landlord to reach a mediated resolution. Although this was unsuccessful because the 2 parties could not agree on the amount of compensation payable, the landlord offered to pay an additional £500 goodwill gesture to recognise the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord provided information to this Service on 8 February 2024 which stated:
1. The landlord accepted that there were delays following its visit on 28 April 2023 because it had a lack of available groundworkers. However, it reviewed the matter on 21 July 2023 and placed an order with an external contractor. The works were completed and post-inspected on 2 August 2023.
2. The landlord had contributed £604.80 towards the garden alterations the resident wanted to make.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Core Void Standard states:
1. “Windows must be capable of being opened; operable for ventilation and means of escape…Window catches and locking handles must be serviceable…Window keys must be provided where key operated locks are fitted”.
2. “All rubbish must be cleared from the bins, gardens, garages, sheds and outhouses”.
3. “Gardens shall be left with grass, vegetation and planting in a manageable state and paths safe to use”.
The landlord’s Repair Responsibilities Guide states that repairs will be carried out within the following timescales:
1. Emergencies – the contractor will visit within 24 hours to ensure the property and the household are safe.
2. Routine (appointments) – every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of the resident contacting the landlord.
3. Non-routine – where a repair is considered to take longer than the routine period due to its complexity or materials needed, the contractor will be given 90 days to complete the repair.
4. Inspections – these will be carried out where the landlord considers a repair is more complicated and needs to be inspected to diagnose the repair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2023 to report issues with the windows, including problems with the window locks. In response, the landlord advised her that window locks were her responsibility. This was inappropriate as the resident had recently moved into the property and under the landlord’s voids standard it should have ensured that the window locks and handles were serviceable. The resident questioned this advice on the basis that she had only been in the property for 2 months. She also stated in her stage one complaint on 31 March 2023 that the locks had been damaged at the time she moved into the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 5 April 2023 and identified various issues with the windows, including defective gaskets, draughts, faulty hinges and defective handles. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 11 April 2023 and stated that she had reported various defects to the landlord’s housing officer when she had signed the tenancy agreement on 18 January 2023, including insecure window locks. The landlord did not dispute this in its stage one reply dated 21 April 2023 and therefore it was inappropriate that the landlord had not acted when the resident had reported the defective window locks when signing the tenancy agreement.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord did not mention in its stage one reply whether it would carry out repairs to the windows following the inspection on 5 April 2023. Instead, it stated that any outstanding issues would be addressed through the additional inspection it had arranged to take place on 28 April 2023. This was unreasonable as the landlord had already inspected the windows on 5 April 2023 and therefore should have been able to advise the resident whether any immediate repairs were considered necessary to the windows.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 2 May 2023 as she said she had not received any updates regarding the windows following the inspection on 5 April 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had inspected the windows a month earlier, identified various defects with them and had not provided any updates to the resident. The resident had advised the landlord that the windows were not secure and she was therefore anxious about security. It was therefore incumbent upon the landlord to communicate its intentions regarding the windows in a timely manner.
The resident chased the landlord for an update regarding the windows on 17 May 2023 and mentioned that the insecure windows were affecting her insurance cover. The landlord therefore raised an order on 17 May 2023 to repair the bathroom window and the living room window, which was described as “off its hinges”. The repairs log shows that the window repairs were completed on 13 June 2023.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that following the inspection on 5 April 2023, the inspector had submitted a planned renewal request in relation to the windows and, as a result, the windows would be replaced in 2024-25. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the timing of the window renewal. However, it was unreasonable that it had failed to communicate whether it would carry out interim repairs following the inspection. The evidence indicates that there were issues with the windows that required urgent attention because:
1. The landlord had not disputed that the resident had reported the window locks being insecure when she signed the tenancy.
1. The resident had advised the landlord on 29 March 2023 that some of the windows could not be locked.
2. The landlord had identified issues with the windows during the inspection on 5 April 2023, including defective handles.
3. The resident had reported on 2 and 4 May 2023 that one of the windows was off its hinges and was therefore insecure as it could be opened from the outside.
Given that the resident had advised the landlord on 2 May 2023 of the security risks, it was unreasonable that the landlord had waited 2 weeks before raising an order on 17 May 2023 to repair the windows. The windows were repaired on 13 June 2023, which was within the 28-day target for routine repairs after the order had been raised.
In its stage one reply, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the windows and offered financial redress of £150. Although this Service welcomes the landlord’s offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer to have been sufficient to put things right because:
1. Under the landlord’s voids standard, the landlord should have ensured that all window locks and handles were serviceable.
1. The resident had reported problems with the window locks at the start of her tenancy and there is no evidence the landlord acted on this.
2. The resident was initially given inappropriate advice in March 2023 that the window locks and keys were her responsibility, even though she had reported problems with them from the start of her tenancy.
3. Following the inspection on 5 April 2023, the landlord did not provide any updates to the resident or raise any orders to repair the windows.
4. Even after the resident wrote on 2 May 2023 that one of the windows was off its hinges, the landlord took a further 2 weeks to raise an order to repair the windows.
5. Overall, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord gave the matter sufficient urgency given that the resident had reported she was anxious about the lack of security in relation to the windows.
The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord’s offer of £150 had not been intended solely as redress for its failings in handling the window issues. It had partly been for the landlord’s failure to clear a £70 debt on the energy meters while the property was void.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows. This is because there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and although the landlord made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 in compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2023 and requested that its contractor contact her regarding the removal of rubbish from her garden. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request and therefore this was unreasonable. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 11 April 2023 and stated that when she moved into the property there had been 3 mounds of soil and rubbish in the garden. In response, the landlord raised an order on 19 April 2023 to inspect the garden, which was reasonable so that it could understand the issues and take appropriate action.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 April 2023 and reported that while she was clearing the garden on 20 April 2023, she had found a syringe and therefore requested the landlord to have the garden cleared professionally. The resident also emailed the landlord on 26 April and attached a photo of a knife that she said her husband had found in the garden.
The landlord inspected the garden on 28 April 2023 and noted there were piles of rubbish and mud in the garden which had been left by the landlord’s Voids team. The inspector recommended the removal of the mounds in the garden to ensure the safety of the household given that the resident had found a syringe and a knife in the garden.
The evidence seen indicates there was some rubbish in the garden that was visible when the resident moved in and there was other waste that had been buried in the garden by the previous occupant. For example, in her emails dated 2 and 4 May 2023, the resident had advised the landlord she had found a buried tyre and bags of rubbish in the garden.
It is not clear from the evidence whether the syringe and knife had been buried in the garden or were visible prior to digging the garden. However, based on the inspector’s contemporaneous notes of his inspection and the other evidence seen, the Ombudsman has concluded that there had been some visible rubbish in the garden, which the landlord had not removed prior to letting the property. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s voids standard states that all rubbish must be cleared from gardens while the property is void. The landlord later accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 9 June 2023 that the garden had not met its lettable standard.
The landlord’s failure to clear the rubbish meant that the resident had to spend additional time and effort removing waste items from the garden and she considered the garden unsafe to use until it had been cleared.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2023 and stated that she had not received any updates regarding the garden following the inspection on 28 April 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided any updates to the resident regarding the garden. This was particularly the case as the landlord was aware the resident had found a knife and syringe in the garden and she was therefore anxious about the safety of the garden.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had arranged for the garden to be cleared and levelled off following the inspection on 28 April 2023. It stated that the work would be completed by 30 June 2023. However, the resident chased the landlord on 30 June, 9 July and 18 July 2023 to say she had still not been contacted regarding the work. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted her about the work prior to 30 June 2023 as it had given a commitment to carry out the work by this date.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the garden on 21 July 2023 and produced a detailed specification of the works required to the garden. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day and confirmed that its landscapers were fully booked and therefore it had contacted external contractors. The work was completed on 2 August 2023 and was post-inspected by the landlord on that day. The work had therefore been carried out 3 months after the first inspection on 28 April 2023. Although this was in line with the landlord’s 90-day target for non-routine jobs, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was inappropriate that the landlord had not given greater priority to making the garden safe because:
1. As per its voids standard, the landlord should have cleared the garden prior to letting it in January 2023.
2. The resident had advised the landlord in May 2023 that she had found a syringe and a knife in the garden and was worried about her children and her dog using the garden.
3. The landlord had given a commitment in its stage 2 reply that the garden would be cleared and levelled off by 30 June 2023.
One of the other failings of the landlord was its lack of communication with the resident regarding the garden. For example, the landlord did not provide an update following the inspection on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s lack of communication was unreasonable and meant that the resident had to chase the landlord on various occasions for updates.
The landlord stated following its inspection on 21 July 2023 that it could not reasonably have known about the presence of the buried waste in the garden. The Ombudsman agrees that the landlord could not reasonably have been expected to excavate the garden prior to letting the property. However, as previously stated, the landlord should have cleared the garden of any visible rubbish as per its voids standard prior to letting the property.
The landlord agreed the garden works with the resident as she wanted to remodel the garden and it agreed to contribute towards the cost of the topsoil. These were positive steps taken by the landlord to put things right and to enable the resident to remodel the garden to her own preference.
Although the landlord did not offer the resident financial redress during the complaints process, it did make a subsequent offer of £500 during November and December 2023 as part of the Ombudsman’s attempt to agree a mediated settlement between the 2 parties. This Service has therefore considered the landlord’s offer and whether this was proportionate to put things right.
Overall, there were various failings by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden. These were:
1. The garden did not meet the landlord’s voids standard when the property was let as it had not cleared rubbish from the garden.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the garden was poor.
3. The landlord did not meet its commitment to clear the garden and level it off by 30 June 2023.
4. The landlord did not give the clearance of the garden a sufficiently high priority after the resident had reported finding a syringe and a knife in the garden.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by working with the resident to carry out works to the garden in such a way that she could remodel the garden to her own preference. The landlord also acted fairly by offering financial redress to acknowledge its failings. The amount offered was £500, which is in the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The amount offered was also in line with the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments, which states that it may offer:
1. Up to £350 compensation where there have been repeated failings in the service provided and there was a high impact to the resident resulting in their standard of living being impacted.
2. Up to £150 where there has been a period of delay and the resident has had to chase several times.
Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made a reasonable and proportionate offer of redress to the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident £500.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, the policy says that if the landlord cannot respond within the prescribed timescales, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 31 March 2023. The landlord replied on 21 April 2023, which was 14 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord had therefore taken longer than its advertised timescale of 10 working days and this was a shortcoming on its part as it had not advised the resident in advance that its reply would be late.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 May 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 9 June 2023, which was 26 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. Although the landlord took longer than its advertised timescale for stage 2 complaints (20 working days), it had written to the resident on 1 June 2023 to advise her that it would need an extension of 10 working days. The resident had agreed the extension of time and therefore the landlord had responded to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord offered financial redress for its failings in relation to the windows. However, the Ombudsman does not consider the amount offered to have been proportionate. The landlord did not ensure that all window locks and handles were serviceable before letting the property and the landlord did not act when the resident initially reported the window problems. Also, the landlord’s communication was poor and it did not treat the window problems with sufficient urgency.
Overall, there were various failings by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden. However, the landlord made a reasonable and proportionate offer of redress to the resident.
The landlord was slightly late with its stage one reply but it replied to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 for its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £500 offered as part of the mediation negotiations.