Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202211405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211405

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

31 August 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould at the property.
This report has also considered:
1. The complaints handling.
2. The record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 27 February 2012. The property is a three-bedroom house over three floors.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it would consider paying compensation amongst other things if it failed to meet service targets, had not acted reasonably or if the resident had suffered a loss or inconvenience. The policy explains that the maximum amount of compensation is £1,000.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that residents may be offered a rent rebate for the non-use of the property. This is calculated on a daily basis and is linked to the weekly rent and in accordance with the loss of the use of the number of rooms which cannot be used.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that in relation to missed appointments or if the contractor is more than an hour late resulting in the need to rearrange the appointment the landlord will make a payment of £10.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property which includes amongst other things the roof, the internal walls, floors and ceilings.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one sets out that the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days. The landlord aims to respond back on the matter with a resolution letter within 10 working days. If the complaint required more time for a resolution the landlord will update the resident and provide an extended deadline for the resolution letter to be issued.
2. If the resident remains unhappy at the first stage, the complaint will proceed to stage two. The landlord will aim to provide a response within 10 working days, however if the complaint requires more time the landlord will keep the resident informed and provide details of the extended deadline for resolution.
3. If the resident remains unhappy at stage two, the complaint will be passed to stage three, the appeals process. The landlord will send the resident an acknowledgment within two days in which it will advise the resident of the appeals process. This involves a panel hearing to take place within 15 working days. The resolution letter will then be issued to the resident within 10 working days of the decision.
The landlord’s reactive repairs policy explains that it has three levels of prioritisation for repairs. For emergency repairs these have a priority of being made safe within 24 hours, for urgent repairs these have a priority for repairs of within five working days. For routine repairs the timescales are within 20 working days.
The landlord’s reactive repairs policy explains that major roofing works and major damp and condensation work will be passed back to the asset management team immediately for an inspection. Any works costing more that £300 will require approval. The policy also explains that the landlord will carry out a quality check on any work costing in excess of £1,000. This will be to determine if a repair has been completed as well as checking the quality of the work. Any defects will be noted and referred back to the original contractor.

Summary of Events

The resident instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf in relation to a disrepair claim on 5 December 2020.
The resident’s solicitor instructed a surveyor on 8 December 2020 with regards to the property to inspect and to prepare a report in terms of the outstanding defects.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2020 concerning the disrepair. The solicitor asked for the property to be inspected as soon as possible and for the repairs to be completed. It explained the resident had health concerns which had been exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property. It listed the defects as:
1. An outstanding leak and associated damage to plaster work in the downstairs hallway. This had led to damage to the electrics and to the carpets. The leak was still outstanding at that time.
2. An ongoing leak and damage associated with this to the ceiling of one of the bedrooms, occupied by the resident’s daughter.
3. A defective and leaking balcony which had been incorrectly sealed and which had poor drainage when it was raining. The wooden joists had been saturated and had become rotten.
The landlord’s solicitor noted on 15 December 2020 that the resident’s solicitor had wanted a response within 20 days. It explained that with the impending Christmas break during which the office would be closed until the new year that it would not be able to reply within this timescale.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s solicitor on 9 February 2021. It explained that the resident had yet to raise a complaint with it about the matter. As such it had not had the opportunity to investigate the matter.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2021. She stated:
1. She had initially reported a leak to the hallway and to the ceiling to her daughter’s room from the balcony of the property 3 years previously.
2. Eventually after a number of chase ups someone had attended the property and painted over the damaged walls and ceilings without addressing the cause of the leak.
3. Whilst this had meant that in the summer months the leak had dried out, when it rained and during the winter months the leak returned and got worse.
4. Due to the state of the damage she no longer considered it was safe for her daughter to be sleeping in her room,
5. In 2020 after a number of calls the landlord had erected a scaffold and carried out a patch up job on the balcony floor to stop the leaking. Shortly after the repair was said to have been completed the problem had resurfaced.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2021. It set out that its complaint process involved three stages.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 February 2021 in which it explained that a response deadline was set as of 23 February 2021.
An internal email on 15 February 2021 confirmed that work had been carried out to the roof and to the balcony on 20 December 2020. The notes explained that once this work had been confirmed the landlord would move forwards in addressing the internal work to the property carried out.
The landlord attended the property together with its surveyor on 23 February 2021. The resident’s solicitor had also instructed a surveyor to attend and provide a report in relation to a disrepair claim. The report by the resident’s surveyor noted the following defects:
1. Defective roof covering and drainage to the second-floor balcony,
2. Water damage to the hall and bedroom ceiling.
3. Water damage in the bathroom.
4. Water damage to the ceiling of the living room.
The landlord’s surveyor also provided a report which it provided to the resident’s surveyor. In addition it provided a scope of works which related to external work to the front balcony as well as internal works to be carried out approximately three months after the roofing work had been completed. Work was also scheduled for the bathroom.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 27 February 2021. The response noted that the landlord had upheld the complaint due to the time taken to rectify the repairs. The landlord added that it had instructed its contractors to carry out repairs in accordance with the independent surveyor’s report.
The landlord emailed its contractor setting out the scope of works which were required. The email confirmed that the contractor had worked on the property previously in terms of the roof but the issue had not been resolved. It added that the job had been given a high priority as it had been referred to its legal department.
The landlord’s new contractor provided it with a quotation dated 30 March 2021 for the decoration and bathroom repairs required at the property. The landlord has confirmed that it was in the process of changing contractors and whilst the repairs carried out in 2020 had been from its previous contractor the new contractor had taken over the contract with effect from late March 2021.
The landlord’s contractor’s confirmed that the landlord had only responded to it to confirm it should proceed with the work on 29 April 2021.
The landlord’s contractor was due to attend the property on 17 May 2021. However it explained that as a result of the weather it was unable to attend and commence the work. It stated it had tried to contact the resident on that day and the following day to rebook but had been unable to do so.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 3 June 2021 with a tower. It explained that the resident initially refused them access. After a couple of hours it had gained access but it refused to work as the resident’s child was asleep in the room leading to the balcony.
The landlord approved the use of a scaffold at the property on 9 June 2021. The contractor’s erected the scaffold on 24 June 2021.
The roofer attended the property on 9 July 2021. He explained that the scaffold needed an extension which was added.
The landlord’s contractor completed the balcony works on 15 July 2021. It emailed the landlord on 19 July 2021 enclosing photos of the balcony both prior to and following the repairs having been completed.
The resident reported on 7 September 2021 that there was a leak which was coming in to the property.
The resident called the landlord on 24 December 2021 and asked it to escalate the complaint which had been made in February 2021 to stage two. The resident explained the repairs had not been completed and the leak was still ongoing. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in an email to the resident on this date. It explained that a response should be provided to him by 13 January 2022. The email explained that its complaints process comprised three stages and that following the final stage the resident was able to refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 January 2022. This had followed on from a call on that day. It explained that it was due to speak to the resident on the following day to hear the resident’s side of the story concerning the complaint. The landlord also asked the resident to forward the documents which she had spoken about for it to review.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 January 2022. It noted it had not heard back from the resident since its email the previous day. The landlord once again requested any documents which the resident wanted it to consider. It explained that it was proposing to get a response out by the end of the following week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 January 2022. She explained that she had been directed by her legal team to direct all enquiries and information to them. The resident provided the landlord with the email address and contact number of her solicitor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 January 2022. It explained:
1. That whilst it understood the resident’s point about referring the matter to her solicitor, it was still dealing with the matter as an internal complaint and it had to fully comply with its internal procedures first.
2. It had instructed its surveyor to contact her and to ascertain the current condition of the internal areas of the property.
3. It understood that there had been confirmed completed repairs as well as proposed repairs which were scheduled to be done.
4. It needed further time to complete the investigation. It noted stage one had been completed in early 2021 and so it needed to understand what had happened since that time. It explained it would try to get the response letter sent by 28 January 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident a copy of the stage two response on 28 January 2022. It explained that based on the chronology of events it had done everything possible to engage, arrange access and carry out the required works. It set out the scheduled works were in progress and that a post inspection was due on 2 February 2022. It therefore did not uphold the complaint. It stated:
1. That upon being informed about the leak in September 2021 it had attended on 14 September 2021 and had taken up the slabs on the balcony and it had renewed the membrane underneath the slabs.
2. It had returned again to the property on 3 November 2021 following further notification by the resident and recompleted the works.
3. In December 2021 the resident had contacted it again to say that there was still water ingress coming into the property. When the contractor had attended it was raining heavily and they noted the cyclone drain had been fitted by the initial builders incorrectly. The contractors had attended again on 7 and 9 December 2021 to redo the work. The contractor had agreed to return after Christmas and reinspect the property.
4. The contractors had stated that in order to complete the works it had on many occasions attempted to contact the resident without success. It stated often when phoning it would receive a response to say the number was unavailable.
5. The contractor had attended the property on 12 January 2022 and determined that there were no further leaks. It then made arrangements to decorate the internal areas of the property including the bathroom and this had been scheduled between 18 and 21 January 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022. She explained that she disagreed with the outcome and wished to take the matter forward. The resident explained:
1. The landlord’s comments in the stage two response had been based on comments from its contractors which were mostly inaccurate.
2. Whilst the landlord had referred to inaccessibility issues since May 2021 as its defence the issue had been raised in June 2017 and since that time it had made a number of further calls. Eventually the resident had sought assistance from a disrepair solicitor in October 2020 which had finally sprung the landlord into taking some action.
3. That she accepted visiting requests over the phone from the landlord and on occasions the landlord’s operatives had not turned up and not called to inform her. The resident did accept there were one or two occasions where she had refused access to the internal areas of the property, and this had been when the operatives had attended without providing notice, or on a different day to that agreed.
4. She had been advised following the work on the balcony that the contractors needed to wait three months, and especially into the rainy season to ensure the repair had worked. Prior repair attempts had not been able to stop the leaks. As the latest work had been carried out internally just several weeks after the latest external repairs this was not sufficient time to determine if the repairs had resolved the issue of the internal leak.
5. The landlord had failed to deal with the actionable disrepair in a reasonable period of time. As a result they wished to make a claim based on 25% of the weekly rent for the period between first reporting the matter in 2017 to the time the repairs were completed. The resident worked this out to be for a total of 245 weeks and placed a value of the claim as at £11,267.31 which in addition to the rent included an amount of £1,550 for special damages, which she did not specify in any further detail.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 10 February 2022 confirming it would make the arrangements of the panel hearing. On 14 February 2022 it sent the resident another email which confirmed that the date of the panel hearing was scheduled for 23 February 2022, and it would be taking place remotely.
The hearing panel took place on 23 February 2022. The resident was informed that the outcome of the appeal would be issued to her in writing within 15 working days. The panel heard from the resident that whilst work had been carried out on the property including in January 2022, there were still lots of puddles in the balcony and brown stain marks on the ceilings. The resident informed the panel that her desired outcome was for the work to be completed satisfactorily so they could live in a safe home which did not impact her health issues. The panel stated that whilst its contractors had carried out work the surveyor had not signed these off as being satisfactory. Contractors were asked to revisit the property to complete the works satisfactorily.
The landlord sent a works order on 1 March 2022 for its contractor to visit the property. The works order noted that water had been gathering on the balcony and that water was also leaking into the bathroom, although it was not clear where this had been from.
The landlord’s contractor sent it an email on 4 March 2022. This stated that all the work had been completed and that the resident was happy with it.
The landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email on 6 March 2022. This had noted that the contractor had confirmed that the outstanding remedial work had been completed and that it would be contacting the resident to arrange a post inspection.
The landlord issued the stage three response to the resident on 9 March 2022. This response contained the minutes of the panel hearing of 23 February 2022. The landlord did not uphold the complaint or support the compensation which the resident had sought. It instead offered a goodwill gesture of £350 as a result of the stress caused as result of identifying the source of the leak. It also accepted there was inconvenience as a result of the scaffolding being erected for a period of time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has explained that in relation to the damp and mould and associated leak into the property that this has been ongoing since 2017 and that from that time the landlord had sent contractors on occasions to do patch jobs which had not resolved the issue which had returned when it had rained. Whilst the resident may have contacted the landlord initially in 2017 she did not raise a complaint with it until February 2021 following her solicitor dealing with the landlord with regards to a disrepair claim.
What this Service can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
Whilst the resident had reported the leak and presumably the damp and mould in 2017, there is no indication that she had raised a complaint about the matter with the landlord at that time. Instead the complaint was only raised in February 2021, over three years since the landlord had initially attended the property. As this would not constitute a reasonable period of time, this Service is unable to consider the matter from 2017. Instead the starting point has been taken from late 2020 when the resident had instructed a solicitor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould at the property.

Upon being made aware by the resident of the complaint on 9 February 2021 the landlord contacted its contractor to establish whether the latest external repairs undertaken in October 2020 had resolved the matter and if so it would then move on to addressing the internal repairs. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to check on the state of repairs, the resident had via a solicitor already raised a disrepair claim on 8 December 2020. In the letter addressed to the landlord the resident’s solicitor had set out that the leak was still in place which suggested that the external repairs had not resolved the matter.
In addition it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the repairs especially as this was an issue which had previously been raised. There is no evidence that the landlord had done this. The landlord instead reported to the resident that the repairs had been completed on 20 December 2020. Having looked at the evidence provided by the landlord including the repairs logs there is no indication that work including any remedial work was carried out on this date. Instead the landlord’s contractor at the time has provided an invoice which stated the external repairs had been carried out in October 2020.
The landlord attended the property on 23 February 2021 together with its surveyor. This had been as a result of the disrepair claim made by the resident. The landlord was able to listen directly to the resident’s complaint at this time and first hand witness the impact that the leak and damp and mould had on the property. Based on this together with both surveyor’s input the landlord was able to put in place the planned repairs scheduled for the property. This involved obtaining a quote for the costs from its contractor. The report carried out at this time noted work was needed to address damp in the bathroom which was not associated with the external leak to the balcony.
The landlord approached its current contractor, at that time. However as it was due to change over contractors it then approached its new contractor, shortly after it began to work with the landlord. Given the scale of work required it was reasonable for the landlord to have attempted to get more than one quote for the work and for it to approach the previous contractor who had carried out previous work on the property and so may have been familiar with what needed doing.
The landlord’s new contractor provided its quote to the landlord at the end of March 2021. However the landlord did not approve this quote until a month later. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay in approving the costs of work. Neither has it provided any evidence that it kept the resident updated on the matter at that time. This was not in keeping with the stage one response which it has issued earlier in March 2021 or in providing the work as being a high priority.
Following the costs being approved at the end of April 2021 it still took until late June 2021 for the external work to be carried out. The contractor explained this had been due to it wanting dry weather to carry out the work and due to access issues with the resident. Whilst the contractor has said there was a number of access issues with the resident as well as contact issues it has not provided contemporaneous notes or details of the calls it attempted where it had been unable to get through to the resident. The resident did explain that due to her health concerns at the time and the Covid-19 pandemic she wished to limit the exposure to her and her family by the work being undertaken. As a result she required prior notification of operatives attending which was a reasonable request from her.
Part of the delay had also been as a result of a change of approach by the landlord’s contractor in requiring scaffolding. Given the nature of the external work to the balcony the alternative would have been for the landlord’s operatives to have carried items through the resident’s property. As the resident had confirmed that her children had been sleeping in the room leading to the balcony this would not have been ideal.
Even after the scaffolding had been erected it still took the landlord’s operative a further three weeks to complete the works. The landlord has explained this was due to the availability of the roofer, as well as the need for the scaffolding to have been extended as per the roofer’s instruction. Given the nature of the work it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident updated on the timescales and when the roofer would attend. The landlord and its contractors have not provided any evidence of any updates which it provided to the resident.
Following the external work being completed in mid-July 2021 there was no indication that the landlord had attempted to complete the internal repairs. The resident has explained that she was told that the landlord would wait for three months after the repairs had been completed to ensure that the leak had been contained. This was an appropriate approach as it ensured that the landlord and its operatives could be satisfied that the repair would not need further remedial work undertaken and it would avoid the need for the internal work to be redone if the leak returned. However part of the scheduled internal repairs related to the bathroom which was not directly linked to the external works being carried out. However the bathroom repairs were not done at that time.
Within this three-month period following the repair the resident had contacted the landlord (in September 2021) to explain the leak had returned. The landlord explained its contractors had carried out work to the balcony on further occasions in September 2021 as well as in November 2021. Again as three months had not elapsed since the work carried out in September 2021 the landlord had not begun to address the internal repairs.
The landlord explained that in December 2021 its contractor had re-attended the property and since it had been raining at the time it was able to determine that the cyclone drain to the property had been fitted incorrectly and this was causing the leak into the property. This was addressed by the contractor between 7 and 9 December 2021. Whilst the replacement fitting of the drain appeared to stop the leak it had taken the landlord and its operative over 14 months and multiple visits to note that the cyclone drain was causing the leak. There is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor had attempted to test the external repair to the balcony previously after the earlier repair. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s obligations.
Whilst the latest repair in December 2021 had appeared to resolve the external issues and the landlord had previously informed the resident it would wait for three months after the repair before it carried out repairs to the internal areas of the property it did not do this. Instead it had scheduled the repairs to be carried out in mid-January 2022, some five to six weeks after the latest repair, following an inspection on 12 January 2022. The landlord has not explained why it had deviated from its previous approach of waiting three months. It did not respond to the resident when she had raised this point as part of escalating the complaint to stage three of the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of what internal repairs were carried out in January 2022. However as part of the panel review it acknowledged that the work carried out had not been completed satisfactorily or been signed off by its surveyor and that the contractor needed to return to the property. From the resident’s comments to the panel it appeared there were still puddles forming on the balcony, although this was not itself a sign of any leak into the property as well as stain marks to the ceiling. The landlord set out these marks were historic and it would apply stain block to remove them. The contractor attended shortly after the panel hearing and completed the repairs. The landlord sent photographs of the work which show the repairs completed to the hallway, ceilings and to the bathroom and which show no brown stain marks still on the ceiling.
Although the resident has requested a payment amounting to 25% of the weekly rent for the duration the repairs had taken to be resolved, the landlord’s compensation policy states this can only be considered where there has been the loss of use of a room exceeding two days. The resident has explained that her child was unable to sleep in their own bedroom due to the brown stains to the ceiling. She also pointed out the hall had been leaking. Although this may have been the case the bedroom was still being used in part by the resident as was the hall. Therefore any payment relating to loss of use of rooms under the landlord’s compensation policy would not be payable.

The complaints handling.

The resident initially raised his complaint on 9 February 2021. The landlord did adhere to its complaints policy with its acknowledgement however it issued the stage one response on 27 February 2021, outside of the timescale of 10 working days. Whilst the landlord had attended the property on 23 February 2021 with its surveyor as well as the resident’s surveyor, there was no apology for the late response noted within the stage one response. Neither had the landlord updated the resident to inform her that it would require additional time.
The resident requested the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two on 24 December 2021. Although this was around 10 months after the landlord had issued the stage one response it passed the matter to stage two. Whilst the landlord’s stage one response had stated it would close the complaint if the resident had not contacted it within 10 days of receipt of the stage one response, its complaints policy did not provide a deadline for escalating the complaint to the next stage of its complaints process.
In terms of the stage two escalation the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation within the timescales as set out in the complaints policy. It explained that it would provide a response by 13 January 2022. This date took in the period that the landlord would have been closed over Christmas and the New Year. Although the landlord informed the resident it needed additional time to complete its investigation it did not do this by the deadline it had provided to the resident. Instead it did this one working day outside of the timeframe it provided. It did however provide its stage two response by the extended deadline it had informed the resident about.
In terms of the final stage of the complaints process the landlord adhered to the timescales as set out in the complaints policy.

The record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided a repairs log and details of some of its email communication with the resident it has not provided clear details of the numerous telephone calls which both it and its contractors had with the resident. The landlord set out that the contractor had difficulties in making appointments with the resident and on occasions had been refused access to the property. It stated that calls to the resident would often end up not being answered or that the number was unavailable. It however accepted at stage three that there was an absence of detailed call notes or other contemporaneous evidence of when this had occurred.
Whilst the landlord’s contractor did provide dates of some of the dates that this had occurred this was disputed by the resident. The contractor had also referred in an email sent to the landlord on 19 January 2022 to not being able to gain access to the resident’s property on 20 May 2021 as the resident’s child was sleeping in the bedroom next to the balcony. However an earlier email from the contractor on 3 June 2021 had confirmed that it was on this date that it had not been able to gain access due to the sleeping child.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s recording keeping.

Reasons

There were significant delays in completing the work on the property. Whilst the landlord has stated this was as a result of the resident changing appointments or refusing access it has not provided evidence to support this was the sole cause. Despite being made aware of the issue of the leak to the external balcony for which repairs in October 2020 had not resolved the matter, a number of further repairs were conducted to the balcony which did not stop the leak from reoccurring. It was only in December 2021 that the landlord’s contractor was able to determine the ongoing leak was being caused by the ill-fitting cyclone drain. Had it carried out tests with water after completing the previous repairs this issue may have been identified at an earlier stage.
It was appropriate for the resident to wait several months after the external repairs had been completed to carry out work on the internal repairs. However the repairs to the bathroom were not affected by the external repairs. However the landlord did not carry out work to the bathroom until 2022, some 11 months since it had agreed to undertake repairs to it.
The landlord failed to meet the timescales in the complaints policy at stage one at two.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord, its contractors and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits and during the numerous repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £750, which comprises:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its handling of the repairs.
  2. £50 for its failure in its complaints handling.
  3. £100 for the failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).