Bristol City Council (202117653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117653

Bristol City Council

17 January 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property including:
  1. The removal of a wire fence from the garden.
  2. Repairs to the drainage in the garden.
  3. Repairs to the driveway and path.
2. The resident’s reports of leaks in the wet room.
3. The resident’s reports of damage caused by contractors.
4. The resident’s 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 the 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, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the removal of a wire fence from the garden.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the wet room.
Under paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of a wire fence from the garden

In correspondence with the Service, the resident has expressed her concern around delays in the removal of a wire fence from the garden. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman has already investigated their concern under case reference 202117644. Given that this matter has already been determined, and that no new related issues have been raised, the Ombudsman has not investigated this matter as part of this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the wet room

In correspondence with the Service the resident has raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property’s wet room. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman has already investigated this issue under case reference 202101013. Given that this matter has already been determined, and that no new related issues have been raised, the Ombudsman has not investigated this matter as part of this complaint.

Background and summary of events

Scope of the investigation

Under case reference 202110757, the Service considered a complaint raised by the resident about flooding to their back garden and pathway and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of cracks to their driveway. As part of the investigation for complaint 202110757 we considered complaints raised and responded to in the period up to the end of July 2021. This investigation will therefore focus only on events relating to these elements of the resident’s complaint that were raised after this date.
There is a large volume of correspondence and information on file; this report contains a summary of the key information. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has raised several complaints at multiple times. Only those relevant to this assessment are considered. Any concerns or issues raised after the stage 2, and the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, fall outside the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord if there are issues that remain unresolved.

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a two-bed end terrace house rented from the landlord, since 21 July 2020. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident is the partner of the main tenant. The tenant has provided authorisation for their partner to act on their behalf. For clarity, this report will refer to both the tenant and their partner as ‘the resident’.
For housing complaints, the landlord operates a two-stage process. The policy says that it will respond to complaints within 15 working days at both stage 1 and 2.
The landlord explained that as a local authority it does not have a stand-alone compensation policy, but that it follows the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
Within the landlord’s repairs policy, it provides a list of those repairs which are the responsibility of the resident. This includes maintaining gardens and individual fences, gates, and sheds.
The policy states that the landlord complies with the statutory timescales of the Right to Repair provisions. It lists the qualifying repairs and their respective timescales. Garden works are not a qualifying repair, and no other timescales for non-emergency repairs are included in the policy. However, the landlord’s repair records show the target timeframe for non-emergency repairs is 21 working days.

Summary of events

On 25 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint (Complaint A). In this they asked, “why are you refusing to do my repairs?” The resident further stated that they believed that the landlord was ignoring their requests and failing to respond to their complaints. They suggested that they would consider taking action for disrepair. The resident highlighted 5 issues within their complaint including the quality of repairs to their path and driveway. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 26 April 2021.
The landlord’s complaint records show that it decided that some elements of Complaint A should be dealt with as a service request, as it raised new repair issues following a recent electrical inspection. Further it noted that other aspects overlapped with an earlier complaint from the resident. Complaint A was referred internally to the officer investigating the related complaint. There is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident or that a formal response was sent specifically for Complaint A.
On 25 November 2021 the resident submitted another complaint (Complaint B). Within this they said that major repairs to their property had been ongoing for 18 months, but these were still yet to be completed. The resident advised of their intention to raise the issue with the press and to instruct action through the courts. The resident also asked for the member of the landlord’s staff, to whom their email was addressed, to resign. They listed the following ongoing issues:
1. Asbestos containing materials dumped within the garden and delays in removing this.
2. Wire fencing left in the ground and not fully removed presenting a hazard.
3. Trenches dug in the garden which had impacted on the effectiveness of previously installed drainage and presented a hazard.
4. That newly repaired concrete to the driveway was deteriorating.
The resident submitted a further complaint on 6 December 2021 (Complaint C). Within this they raised the following issues:
1. Wire fencing still left in the garden and damage caused by contractors. They said that this had been upheld through a previous complaint at both stage 1 and 2, but the fencing still had not been removed.
2. A contractor had recently attended to carry out works to rectify previous works on a drain which had caused a trip hazard. The resident said that the contractor had “built an extension to a broken path” and that these had been done poorly leaving “a large trench causing a wider, bigger and longer trip hazard.”
3. Contractors attending to deal with the asbestos in garden had dug another trench causing more damage to the garden and the resident was unclear when this would be rectified.
4. The trenches that had been dug by the landlord’s contractor were causing flooding and had taken away the benefits of drainage previously provided by the landlord.
5. The landlord was ignoring their repair requests for the driveway. This was broken and cracked with no foundation and affected by water damage. This was similar to the path which had been replaced. They said these had been raised 2 weeks previously.
This complaint also included a request for Complaint A to be escalated to stage 2 as they had not received a stage 1 response. The resident said that they had been advised that Complaint A would be responded to under another complaint reference, but the landlord had not advised which case reference this would be.
The resident followed up their complaint with a further email on 7 December 2021 attaching photographs showing areas of flooding/standing water within the garden. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2021 thanking them for their communication. It said that it would consider the issues raised within Complaint B together with Complaint C and provide a single response under the reference allocated to Complaint C.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it was responding to issues raised in Complaints B and C. This acknowledged the resident’s unhappiness with the condition of the property. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 10 December 2021, and that it would provide a follow up report within 2 weeks. It further explained that Complaint A had been dealt with in part as a service request and other items responded to under an earlier complaint case. This document is headed stage 2 response, but further recorded as a stage 1 reply.
The landlord undertook inspections of the resident’s property on 10, 22 and 29 December 2021. The detailed information collected about the property was then collated into a condition survey report completed on 5 January 2022. The report set out the aims of the inspection and said that it was not a full building survey. This was a visual survey only. The aim was:
1. To consider defects to the property raised by the resident.
2. To identify those that required urgent attention or were serious.
3. To identify those that required further investigation to prevent serious damage to the fabric of the building.
4. To identify issues of health and safety and any Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) breaches.
The survey covered all aspects of the property, identifying areas for repair. The report conclusions listed the actions to be taken and the date for the identified repairs to be carried out. The key elements relevant to this investigation are:
1. There was an ongoing repair to the rear path which was to be renewed entirely. It said that previous patch repairs have not resolved an issue of cracking around the kitchen gully. The repairs were to start on 10 January 2022 and be completed by end January 2022.
2. It agreed with the resident that a concrete footing, which had been left following the removal of an outbuilding, was to be removed and replaced with concrete. This was to be done as part of the works to the path.
3. It discussed the resident’s concerns around flooding in the garden and the inadequacy of the soakaway. It concluded that there was no issue with drainage to the garden, other than the trenches which had been dug as part of its investigations into possible asbestos within the garden. These investigations were ongoing at that time.
4. It noted that the condition of the driveway reflected its age. It said that there was no health and safety issue identified, noting slight sinking at the front of the driveway. It said that the landlord’s responsive repairs service provided for repairs only. A renewal of the driveway would be part of planned programme works and dependent on available budget.
The report said that “[the landlord would] carry out repairs for which it has responsibility but generally not improvements other than those specified as part of planned upgrades or where works carried out conveys this incidental benefit.”
The resident submitted a complaint on 7 January 2022 (Complaint D). Within this the resident raised the following complaints:
1. The landlord had refused to repair the sinking driveway and that despite having had several visits from surveyors they had refused to inspect it. The landlord’s last report said that it was showing signs of sinkage due to age, but the resident said that part of the driveway affected was only 6 months old.
2. The driveway had several previous repairs which were failing, and it was a trip hazard.
3. The landlord was or had undertaken full replacements of the other concrete paths to the property leaving the driveway as the only area not done. They did not understand why the landlord had refused their repairs to the driveway.
As an outcome to this complaint the resident said that they wanted the driveway to be inspected and for repairs to be undertaken. They further said that, if necessary, they would arrange for the works to be done and seek recovery of the costs through the courts. They asked that the complaint not be merged with others.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 January 2022 following contact with the Service. It advised that it would provide the resident with a response to Complaint A within its response to Complaint C as the issues overlapped. It said that this would be dealt with under stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The resident had requested an escalation of their complaint on 28 December 2021. The resident responded directly to the landlord requesting that their complaints not be merged. This was to “avoid confusion and to ensure that their high number of complaints were answered correctly.”
On 26 January 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 response to Complaint D regarding the resident’s driveway. It said:
1. It had carried out an inspection of the driveway on 14 January 2022, together with its contractor.
2. Works were identified to renew the concrete to a fallen area of the driveway, fill in a small gap in an expansion joint and to “grind back areas where the concrete was no longer level.” It said that these works had been completed on the same day as the inspection.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that its repairing obligation did not extend to the garden and therefore did not extend to the driveway. It confirmed that it would repair identifiable hazards where economically possible.
4. If the driveway became economically unrepairable, it would remove but not replace it. Renewals were undertaken by the planned projects team and dictated by budget and its policy.
On 26 January the landlord sent a stage 2 response to Complaint C. It confirmed that this also covered Complaint A. It noted that the key issues were:
1. Wire fencing that had not been removed from the garden despite assurances that this would be done.
2. That the path had been poorly repaired and that there was a large trench which was causing a trip hazard.
3. The damage that had been caused to the garden by the landlord’s contractors investigating asbestos in garden.
4. That the drains in the garden were not fit for purpose due to the trenches that had been dug.
5. Damage to the driveway had been reported, but the resident had received no response.
The landlord said that it had reviewed its earlier responses, the recent survey that had been completed and contacted relevant members of its staff. In its reply it:
1. Apologised for the delay in removing the wire fencing. It explained that a contractor had been instructed to undertake works to remove the wire fencing and a concrete post. It was also to look for and remove any other remnants of a chain link fence.
2. Apologised for the ongoing issues with the rear path, and for the time and trouble taken by resident to deal with this. It had agreed that it would replace the rear path as the previous patch repairs had failed. It said that these works had been completed.
3. Said that the trench in the garden had been dug by its contractors to “gather samples to identify asbestos”. It apologised that this had not been explained. It said that it had instructed the contactor to rotavate the area to a depth of 125mm and remove any asbestos remnants. It asked the resident to contact its surveyor once the “weather allows for returfing of the area.”
4. Addressed the resident’s concerns around flooding to the garden. It explained that its recent inspection had not found the garden to be flooded, other than areas of standing water where the trenches had been dug. It said that as the soil was clay based it was not unusual for the ground to become sodden or be prone to standing water in periods of heavy and prolonged rainfall. It asked the resident to monitor the situation and contact the surveyor if their concerns remained.
5. Said that the recent report had noted a small area at the front of the driveway was sinking and that some patch repairs had been completed. It explained that it did not intend to carry out further repairs to the driveway. It acknowledged that this issue had been raised within Complaint D and that this had been responded to at stage 1 of its complaints process.
6. Provided a response to the issues that the resident had raised through Complaint A. It explained that this had been dealt with as a service request and alongside an earlier complaint. It apologised that the resident had not been advised at the time of raising their complaint in April 2021.
7. Apologised for issues faced by the resident and the time and trouble taken by them in raising these with the landlord. It offered the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of this.
8. Recognised that it had not always provided timely responses to the resident. It noted that the level of contact from the resident with different officers had caused some confusion for the landlord and delayed matters. It directed the resident to report repairs through its website or by calling the numbers previously provided. It asked that the resident should allow a reasonable time for a response, which it said would allow it to respond more effectively.
The resident raised a further complaint (Complaint E) on 18 January 2022. The specific details of the complaint are unknown. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to Complaint E on 2 February 2022. Within this the landlord explained that the reinstatement of the resident’s garden required either grass seed or turf. It said that given the time of year it was not possible for it to undertake these works at that time. It asked the resident to confirm that they were happy for it to return and complete these at a more favourable time of year, on a date yet to be agreed.
In this letter the landlord made a request that all correspondence should be sent to a named member of staff (the author of the letter), who had been designated as the resident’s single point of contact. It further asked the resident to keep their emails professional in tone. It noted that the resident had repeated an intention to take legal action against the council and provided the address for its legal services, where proceedings should be sent.
The resident contacted the Service on 21 February 2022. They said they had received a stage 2 response from the landlord in respect of Complaints A and C. They were unhappy with the outcome which had not fully upheld their complaint and had taken over a year for the landlord to provide. They said they wanted the landlord to take complaints seriously and not to combine cases, as it caused confusion.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2022 requesting dates for when agreed works would be carried out. This included rectification works to the garden. They asked the landlord to respond by 3 March 2022 and advised that if it failed to do so they would be issuing county court proceedings. The landlord responded on 4 March 2022. It said that the works to the garden were weather dependent, and it could not agree a date. It confirmed that it had instructed its contractor to flatten the disturbed area of the garden as an interim measure.
The landlord has provided evidence that the resident issued a claim in the county court on or around 16 March 2022. This referred to the damage caused to the garden by the landlord’s asbestos contractor and its failure to returf and reinstate the garden as agreed through its complaints process. This expressed the resident’s belief that the landlord had failed to complete these works due to the ongoing issue of asbestos within the garden area. This claim was struck out by the court.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2022 to report further issues with the driveway and said that these presented a health and safety hazard. In response the landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 20 May 2022. The landlord has advised that it instructed a contractor to carry out necessary minor repairs to the driveway, but the resident declined to allow these to be carried out due to pending legal action.
On 5 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. They advised that when driving their car onto the driveway the surface had cracked and provided photographs of what had occurred. In response the landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 16 August 2022. Minor repairs to a small section of the driveway were identified and these were untaken by the landlord. These had been completed ahead of a surveyor’s inspection and report carried out on 20 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the drains in the garden, the driveway, and the path

The resident had raised a number of repair issues with their landlord, both internal and external.
The landlord had undertaken works to install additional drainage into the resident’s rear garden and had carried out patch repairs to areas of the concrete pathway. In November 2021 the resident reported that the landlord’s contractors had carried out works, digging trenches in the garden which meant that the drainage installed previously was no longer effective. This they stated was hazardous. They also reported that newly installed concrete on the driveway was deteriorating. The resident submitted a further complaint at the beginning of December 2021, 7 working days after their original complaint. This raised similar issues to their earlier complaint, raising an additional complaint about the quality of repair works to their garden path and stating that the landlord was ignoring their request for repairs to their driveway.
The landlord responded to both complaints on the 13 December 2021. Given the proximity of these complaints and the similarities in the issues raised it was appropriate for the landlord to consider these together and provide a single response. It confirmed that it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 10 December 2022 and that it would take appropriate action following its report. This was a reasonable response.
From the evidence that is available, 2 further inspections of the resident’s home were undertaken by the landlord’s surveyor and a full condition survey was produced on 5 January 2022. This confirmed that the landlord would replace the pathway as the patch repairs previously carried out had been unsuccessful. It noted that the trenches in the garden had been dug as part of the investigations into asbestos in the garden. It did not identify any issues with flooding other than in these areas and felt that the previously installed drainage was effective. The report also concluded that the condition of the driveway reflected age and that it had identified no health and safety issues.
The resident raised a new complaint about the condition of the driveway on 7 January 2022. The landlord arranged for another inspection, together with a contractor and repairs to areas of the driveway were carried out on 14 January 2022. In its formal response to this complaint the landlord stated that its repair obligations did not extend to the garden of the property and by extension it did not have responsibility for the driveway. It did say that it would address areas that represented a hazard.
The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy are clear that the responsibility for maintaining the garden of a property along with associated fences, gates and sheds sits with the tenant. Both documents are silent in respect of driveways. The landlord set out within its complaint response that it would not replace the driveway and explained that this would be an issue for its planned works team and would be reliant on the availability of budget.
The landlord had taken appropriate steps to address issues of poor drainage in the resident’s garden by installing new drainage. The trenches dug by its contractor addressing reports of asbestos in the garden did allow for standing water following periods of rain, which the landlord addressed in its complaint response.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of issues with the path and driveway. For the path, having undertaken patch repairs which did not fully address the resident’s concerns, it arranged for the path to be fully replaced in January 2022. It further carried out patch repairs to the driveway. It is acknowledged that repairs carried out in the first instance had been unsuccessful. Further repairs were carried out and completed between August and October 2022.
It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake these patch repairs in response to the resident’s concerns about a health and safety hazard. However, there is no express duty placed on the landlord to undertake repairs to the driveway. Through its complaint response and its direct communication with the resident it has clearly explained the extent to which it will carry out repairs and said that it will not replace the driveway in the future. While it is noted that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, it has acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable, and in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors

The resident reported that the contractors had caused damage to their garden by digging a few trenches and the landlord failed to remedy these.
Through its complaint responses the landlord advised that the trenches had been dug to allow for samples to be taken to investigate the concerns raised by the resident that there was asbestos buried within the garden. The landlord apologised that this had not been made clear to the resident. It is noted that the resident was aware that the works were being carried out in response to concerns that they had raised about asbestos being buried within an area of the garden. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for any confusion that had been caused.
The landlord further arranged for the area of the garden that had been disturbed to be flattened as an interim measure. It then advised that it would arrange for the area to be either returfed or reseeded once the weather permitted. This was appropriate given the time of year when it was addressing this with the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident had submitted several complaints to the landlord. Through this investigation we have considered the landlord’s handling of 5 separate complaints.
There was a significant delay in providing a formal response to Complaint A. The landlord’s records indicate that it dealt with part of the complaint as a service request and that the remaining elements were to be addressed within another complaint response. It did not however communicate this to the resident, leaving them frustrated as the landlord’s lack of response and leading them to contact the Service.
The landlord addressed Complaint A within its stage 1 response to Complaints B and C but failed to provide details of how it had previously responded to the complaint. Following the escalation of Complaint C by the resident, the landlord said that it would also provide a response to Complaint A within its reply. This it did, addressing each of the points raised by the resident. It noted the lack of clarity in its earlier response and the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing their complaint. An offer of £200 compensation was made in recognition of this. This was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
There was a 9 month delay in the landlord responding to the resident on the issues raised through Complaint A, both at stage 1 and stage 2. The other complaints considered by this investigation were all responded at stage 1 within the timescales set within the landlord’s complaint’s policy of 15 working days. There was a delay at stage 2, following the resident request to escalate Complaint C, with the response taking a total of 22 days. It is however recognised that the escalation request was made in the period between Christmas and new year when the landlord’s offices may have been closed.
It is noted that the resident asked the landlord not to combine its responses to their complaints. The resident’s reasons for this request are understood. However, given the proximity to and similarity in nature of some of the resident’s complaints, it was appropriate for it to provide a single complaint response, as it did in responding to Complaint B and C. It could reasonably have provided a separate stage 2 response to Complaint A. However, it does not appear unreasonable for it to have included this within its escalated response to Complaint C. It told the resident that it was combining the responses and was clear in its drafted response. As such, there was not a lack of clarity in the response despite the landlord combining the complaints.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by investigating the resident’s issue and awarding £200 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance and the landlord offered compensation which was proportionate to the inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
The timeframes within the landlord’s complaint policy are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This issue was previously been identified by the Service as part of a separate complaint raised by the resident. This was investigated under case reference 202115975 and determined in June 2023. A recommendation was made as part of the determination for the landlord to review its complaint’s policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(I) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the removal of a wire fence from the garden is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property including (ii) repairs to the drains in the garden and (iii) repairs to the driveway and path.
In accordance with paragraph 42(I) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the wet room is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints through its internal complaint’s process, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately undertook repairs to add additional drainage into the resident’s garden. It noted the resident’s concerns around pooling of water due to the trenches dug by its asbestos contractors and further explained that due to the nature of the soil, being clay, this could cause excessive standing water.
Having identified that the patch repairs carried out to the path had been unsuccessful, it replaced the path. It also agreed further concrete repairs within the garden directly with the resident. It carried out patch repairs to the driveway and explained to the resident that its repairs service was unable to replace the driveway. This was appropriate given the landlord’s obligations and the likely cost and extent of such work.
The landlord initially failed to explain to the resident why the trenches had been dug by its asbestos contractor. It agreed, once its works were complete, to both level the affected areas of the garden and to returf or re-seed once the weather permitted. The resident is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the garden as specified within their tenancy agreement.
The landlord has dealt with each of the resident’s complaints considered through this report within appropriate timescales. It acknowledged its failure to provide an appropriate formal response to Complaint A. Its offer of compensation was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

Recommendation

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide an update to the Service as to the steps it has taken to review its complaints policy since our request for it to do so in June 2023. This should confirm the outcome of its review and whether or not it has implemented of a separate housing complaints policy compliant with the Code.