The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202002871)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002871

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 March 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
  • Response to the resident’s reports about:

a)     The replacement of the oven at the property;

b)     The replacement of the carpet at the property;

c)     The replacement of the toilet seat at the property;

d)     Repairs to the toilet at the property;

e)     Repairs to the air vent system at the property;

f)       Repairs to the doorway, skirting boards, blinds and taps at the property;

  • Communal service provision at the property;
  • Handling of the resident’s personal data;
  • Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
  2. This Service understands that, at the point at which this case fell within the Ombudsman’s formal remit, no final response had been issued in respect of the complaints about the replacement of a toilet seat, repairs to the doorway, skirting boards, blinds and taps, and the communal service provision at the property.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  4. This is not the case here and so, these aspects of the complaint are outside jurisdiction and will not be covered in this report. The resident is free to bring these issues at a later stage, if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response(s), should she progress the complaint(s), or if she has already progressed them through the stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  5. Similarly, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her personal data is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This Service is not responsible for enforcing the data protection legislation and so, it is its view that the complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  6. The remaining aspects of the complaint are within jurisdiction and will be considered in the investigation report below.

Background and summary of events

Background, policies and procedures

  1. The resident is an ‘intermediate market rent’ tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy is an assured shorthold one. There is a disabled person in the resident’s household, as confirmed by the resident’s complaint correspondence and the landlord’s reference to household vulnerability in its repair records.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) sets out a landlord’s obligations to repair a property that is let out to a tenant by way of a short lease. The Act prescribes that landlords must keep all the “installations” in the property that supply water, gas, electricity and sanitation items (such as the toilets), in a good, working condition.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that responsive repairs are divided into two main categories: emergency and non-emergency repairs. It says that for emergency repairs, the landlord should complete works to make the property safe, or temporarily repair, within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, the landlord will offer the next available appointment within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported; this should be at a date and time that suits the tenant.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure:   

a)     Whereby it will first respond to a complaint at stage one; the policy documentation the landlord sent to this Service does not provide a specific timescale for stage one responses.

b)     Following a request from a dissatisfied resident, where agreed, it will carry out a review of the complaint and aim to provide a final response within 20 working days.    

  1. Section 5.5 of the landlord’s compensation policy provides that where requested, residents shall be paid compensation, where it fails to attend a repair appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice, where it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Summary of events

  • Oven
  1. In her complaints to the landlord about the oven, the resident has referred to a replacement supplied by the landlord in 2018. This Service understands that a complaint about this particular issue was escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure in April 2018. As the complaint was determined more than 12 months prior to the resident contacting this Service about the current complaint, it will not be considered as part of this investigation; any references to this previous complaint are included for context only.
  2. Turning to the current complaint, the evidence provided to this Service indicates that the resident had first reported a fault with her oven on 12 August 2019.There are no records available of how the landlord responded to this initial report from the resident.
  3. On 22 October 2019, the resident complained to the landlord, in which she said:

a)     The fault with her oven was with the temperature dial which had come off. A contractor had visited her and following this, her understanding was that a replacement part had been ordered. She had since received no update from the landlord.

b)     She had then received a message from the landlord’s white goods contractor to inform her that it would deliver a replacement oven to her on/around 20 October 2019. However, her view was that the replacement in question was a downgrade and that no one had contacted her to discuss it. The resident explained that she previously had an oven which had a LED display and was self-cleaning; she said that the landlord had replaced it with a basic oven in 2018, which had developed a fault within a year.

  1. On 24 October 2019, the landlord’s white goods contractor emailed the landlord in response to the points raised by the resident. It said that:

a)     The replacement oven was as per the agreed specifications with the landlord and was (in its opinion) of similar or even superior quality to the existing appliance.

b)     The parts for the existing oven were obsolete and so, the faulty part could not be replaced.

c)     It would not consult residents on replacement appliances unless specifically instructed to by the landlord, where there are special needs issues.

  1. On 21 November 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to provide her with two further options. On the same day, the resident replied suggesting different models which she wanted the landlord to consider.
  2. On 26 November 2019, the landlord issued its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said that:

a)     Under the tenancy terms and conditions, it was responsible for providing the white goods in the property. It explained that standard practice will be for it to replace appliances with ‘like-for-like’ ones, however, this would not include all functionalities.

b)     As the resident had highlighted that her existing oven had a LED display, it had provided her with two further options, which were of similar or even superior quality, and came with a display. It said that in response to this, the resident had referred it to her email dated 21 November 2019.

c)     Overall, it had concluded that the delay in providing the resident with a replacement oven had been caused by the fact that it had been trying to accommodate her wishes and her continued refusal to accept the options it had provided.

  1.  On 20 February 2020, the resident submitted a further complaint about the oven. It also included complaints about the carpet and repairs to the toilet and ventilation system at the property. The landlord treated this as a stage 2 complaint or ‘peer review’. In regard to the oven, the resident said that:

a)     The landlord had replaced a previous oven worth more than £400, with a cheaper model, which had become faulty and unusable.

b)     As a replacement, the landlord had ordered an oven without her consent; the specifications were not similar to the ones on the original oven. She had asked the landlord to send her an oven with good specifications and reviews, however, it had provided her with options that were not ‘like-for-like’, seemed to be the ‘cheapest’, and ‘not of the best quality’.

c)     She had been without an oven since August 2019.

  1.  On 30 June 2020, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. It said that its white goods contractor had confirmed that the replacements it had offered were of the same or higher specifications to her existing oven; it said that it was unable to accede to the resident’s demand for a specific replacement oven.
  2. On 7 July 2020, the resident contacted this Service. In addition to the issues mentioned earlier, she said that the landlord had told her to make her own arrangements for an alternative oven.
  • Carpet
  1. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had contacted it on 18 October 2019, to report that the carpet at the property was damaged, lifting in some areas and that it needed to be replaced. Subsequently, the landlord inspected the property on 8 November 2019. The inspection notes state that there were stains from day-to-day use, but there was no fault with the carpet. It is unclear whether the findings included consideration of the resident’s reports that the carpet was lifting in some areas.
  2. On 8 November 2019, the resident raised a complaint about the carpet and repairs to the toilet and the ventilation system at the property.
  3. On 21 November 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes state that the resident explained that the carpet was lifting, which in her view, was a hazard. The notes state that her main concern was that there were stains showing from underneath the carpet throughout the whole property.
  4. On 16 December 2019, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint dated 8 November 2019. It apologised to the resident for a missed inspection on 26 November 2019, and explained that its surveyor had been on annual leave that day. It said that an inspection was carried out after this, on 10 December 2019, with the resident’s mother being present. The landlord has not provided records of the inspection in question, however, there is no dispute that it took place. The landlord’s records also state that during a telephone call with the resident on 16 December 2019, in relation to her complaint, she had mentioned that a further inspection had been arranged for 18 December 2019, as the initial one was ‘quick’. The notes state that the resident had also confirmed that her mother was present when the landlord’s surveyor had visited the property on 10 December 2019.
  5. Regarding the carpet in particular, the landlord said that it was responsible for replacing it and so, the inspecting surveyor had referred this issue to its neighbourhood team so it could look into it. In its response, the landlord said that its surveyor was due to visit again on 18 December 2019, which would give an opportunity to the resident to discuss all issues raised in her complaint with them. However, later the same day, the landlord informed the resident that the inspection was no longer required but said that the surveyor would call her to clarify this further.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about her carpet after this and so, she complained further on 20 February 2020. She said that the landlord’s surveyor had inspected the property regarding the carpet and had told her that it needed to be replaced with adequate flooring as her property qualified for this in the rental agreement. The resident did not specifically say when the inspection in question took place. She also said that the surveyor had called her on 10 December 2019, and had agreed to visit again however, this never happened. On 3 March 2020, during a telephone call with the landlord about her stage 2 complaint, she said that the carpet was old, lifting and would easily stain and that a surveyor had confirmed it had to be replaced.
  7. On 30 June 2020, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s stage 2  complaint. It said its surveyor had inspected the property on 10 June 2020, and that their professional opinion was that the stains on the carpet may have been caused by the occupants. It had therefore concluded that it had no reason to replace the flooring at the property.
  8. On 7 July 2020, the resident told this Service that the surveyor who had attended had not carried out a proper inspection of the carpet. She said that an inspection in November 2019, had established that the carpet needed to be replaced. She also said that the carpet was lifting in several rooms.
  • Toilet
  1.  The landlord’s records indicate that it had received several reports from the resident in relation to blockages and the flush.
  2.  In regard to the flush, the available evidence indicates that the landlord received reports from the resident on 1 May, 26 July, 11 September and 11 October 2019, and in response to these, it attended on 8 May, 31 July, 17 September and 29 October 2019, respectively.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 12 August 2019, there was an escalation from its contact centre to its repairs team, regarding the resident’s toilet not flushing properly. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this, but this Service notes that it had replaced the flush mechanism on 17 September 2019, following the reports from the resident on 11 September 2019. 
  4. On 16 December 2019, in its stage 1 response to the complaint dated 8 November 2019, the landlord referred to its surveyor’s inspection on 10 December 2019. It said that its surveyor had attended the property with a plumber and had found no issue with the toilet.
  5.  On 20 February 2020, the landlord received the resident’s stage 2 complaint. On 3 March 2020, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident. The call notes state that the resident advised that there was still a problem with the toilet flush and that she felt the landlord had not addressed this. She said that the landlord had only used one sheet of toilet paper during its previous inspection. She said that, when in full use, in order for the toilet flush to work, she would have to press and hold it repeatedly and that the valve and flush needed to be replaced.
  6. On 15 April and 15 May 2020, the resident reported that her toilet was blocked. The available records indicate that in response to the reports, the landlord attended the property on 15 and 16 April 2020, and on 15 May 2020.
  7. On 10 June 2020, during an inspection in relation to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 February 2020, the landlord’s surveyor found no issue with the flush. As the resident was adamant that the toilet would get blocked and back up when in full use, the surveyor recommended a camera survey. The records indicate that the survey was undertaken on 15 June 2020.
  8. On 16 June 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint. During the call, the resident confirmed that the survey had taken place and that no blockage had been found. She said that the design of the toilet was as such that there was a point that could be affecting waste being flushed down. The resident mentioned that she had called the landlord and emailed it the day before, as its contractor had caused scratches to the toilet. She said that there was a possibility that the toilet bowl needed to be changed because of this. The landlord’s notes state that it told the resident that as she had already raised it, it would expect the issue to be addressed separately. On the same day, it sent an email about the resident’s concerns in relation to the damage to the toilet to the relevant service area so it could investigate at its end, as they did not form part of its peer review at the time.
  9. On 30 June 2020, in its final response to the complaint, the landlord stated that following its inspection on 10 June 2020, and the camera survey, it had concluded that the waste system was working as designed. It said that the cause of blockages was thought to be related to moist toilet tissues being flushed down the toilet.
  10.  In her email to this Service on 7 July 2020, the resident said that the blockages were in no way related to the use of moist wipes, as her household did not use them.
  • Ventilation system
  1. The records provided to this Service by the landlord indicate that its contractor had attended the property on 30 August 2019, further to reports it had received from the resident on 12 August 2019. The notes state that the ventilation system was checked and that it required a specialist to attend. There is no evidence that the landlord took action on this.
  2. On 16 September 2019, the landlord recorded that the ventilation system would not draw air out, that the issue had been ongoing for more than a year and that a contractor was required. On 23 September 2019, it recorded that whilst the repair was for its Mechanical and Electrical team’s contractor to carry out, it had been referred back to the landlord.
  3. On 16 December 2019, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said that during the inspection on 10 December 2019, the resident’s mother had told the surveyor that there were no issues with the ventilation system. It said that its surveyor had sent a referral to its Mechanical and Electrical team to arrange servicing of the air vent system. There is no evidence that this happened and so, the resident raised a further complaint on 20 February 2020. She said that she had received no update from the landlord in regard to the servicing.
  4.  On 11 June 2020, a works order was raised for the landlord’s contractor to attend the property to service the ventilation system. On 17 June 2020, the landlord’s contractor reported that it had attended the property and that it had left the ventilation system working. On 30 June 2020, in its final response to the complaint, the landlord stated that its surveyor had inspected the property and had found the extractor to be working. The landlord said that its contractor had also serviced the ventilation system.

Assessment and findings

Oven

  1. The landlord’s communications to the complainant, in particular its stage 1 response dated 26 November 2019, confirm that it was responsible for repairing and replacing the oven at the property with a like-for-like appliance. It is not clear what action the landlord took in response to the resident’s initial report of a faulty oven in August 2019, though it is reasonable to conclude that whatever actions it took included identifying that the oven required replacement. Having identified the requirement to replace the oven, it is of concern that there then followed a two-month delay in providing this replacement. There is no evidence of the landlord having provided a temporary alternative during this period of delay, though it is reasonable to conclude that the fault with the oven did not prevent the resident from accessing other cooking facilities, such as the hob. Nonetheless, the absence of a working oven for this period would have left the household inconvenienced throughout.
  2. There is also no evidence that the landlord had kept the resident updated regarding her oven during the period of delay. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that mechanical and electrical maintenance is excluded from the responsive repairs services and that installations are maintained by specialist teams with specialist contractors. The landlord has not provided its mechanical and electrical maintenance policy to this Service and so it has not been possible to determine whether it had acted in line with its policies in this instance, but the considerable delay in providing the resident with a replacement oven and an update on this particular issue, was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. Having said this, it is clear that the landlord had arranged for a new oven to be sent to the resident in October 2019, and further to her subsequent complaint, it had given her the opportunity to choose from two further options to cater to her request for an oven with a display. The landlord’s white goods contractor confirmed that the initial replacement oven was of similar or even superior quality to the existing appliance. It is the resident’s view that all the options offered to her were not ‘like-for-like’, were ‘cheap’, in comparison to an oven which had been replaced in 2018, and that they did not have good specifications or reviews.
  4. Whilst the resident’s concerns were understandable, there is no evidence that the landlord’s offer was unsuitable. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its white goods contractor, in concluding that its offer was appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, this Service does not consider that any delay in providing the resident with a replacement oven from October 2019 onwards, is attributable to the landlord.

Carpet

  1. At stage 1, the landlord’s response clearly stated that the carpet aspect of the complaint had been referred to its neighbourhood team. There is no evidence of this occurring, leading to a further complaint in February 2020, three months after its initial response.
  2. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord inspected the property twice and did not identify any issues with the carpet. However, it is not clear whether the landlord had properly considered the issue of the carpet lifting raised by the resident. Its final response on 30 June 2020, focuses on the complaint about the stains. It does not clearly say what the landlord had concluded regarding the resident’s complaint that that the carpet was lifting in some areas, and that this constituted a hazard.
  3. The resident disagrees with the landlord’s conclusions about the stains on the carpet, but she has not provided evidence to support her claims. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a decision on whether or not the carpet damage had been caused by resident behaviour, but to consider the landlord’s response to the reports raised. In this respect, the landlord’s response was reasonable, in that it investigated the damage and relied upon the opinion of its contractor to conclude that the resident was responsible. It remains however, that the resident has not had a response in relation to the potential health and safety issue.
  • Toilet repairs
  1. In reaching a decision, this Service must consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, properly followed its procedures and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. It is this Service’s duty to determine complaints by reference to what is, in its opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Under the landlord’s guidance on repair responsibilities, it notes that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and to non-emergency ones within 28 days of the repair being reported. The available evidence confirms that the landlord did abide by its repairs policy to meet its legal obligations in respect of the multiple occasions when the resident reported issues with the toilet. It took action within 24 hours of receiving the resident’s reports about blockages, and within 28 days, of receiving her reports about the flush. The available evidence indicates that the required works were completed within the relevant timescales. Whilst the flush issue was clearly an inconvenience, it is relevant that there is no evidence that these issues left the resident without use of the toilet at the property at any point.
  3. When the resident raised a further complaint about the issue, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged a further inspection, in June 2019. It also acted on the recommendation from its surveyor for a CCTV survey be carried out to definitely resolve the blockage issue. This was also completed in June 2019. This Service has not had sight of the survey report but notes that it was referred to by the landlord in its final complaint response and that the resident has raised concerns in regard to the outcome of the survey. But it is not for this Service to make a decision on whether or not the blockages had been caused by wipes being flushed down the toilet, but to consider the landlord’s response to the reports raised. And so, it is this Service’s view that the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. This is as it reasonably relied on the recommendations of its suitably qualified operatives and undertook the necessary inspection.
  4. In line with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme which states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale, the resident’s concerns about damage to the toilet during the camera survey on 15 June 2020, have not been considered as part of this review. This Service has noted that the landlord had treated the issue as a separate enquiry and there is no evidence that it had issued a final response regarding this particular aspect of the complaint when the complaints were submitted to this Service.
  • Ventilation system
  1. The landlord’s failure to take action on its operatives’ recommendations in August, and December 2019, was not appropriate or in accordance with its repairing obligations. It failed to refer the issue for investigation by its specialist contractor as recommended by its other contractor on 30 August 2019. In its stage 1 response on 16 December 2019, it said that it would arrange for its contractor to service the system as per the advice of its surveyor, but the evidence provided to this Service does not show it did. It should not have required the resident to raise a further complaint in February 2020, for it to respond and finally progress the works to resolve this matter.
  2. Furthermore, in September 2019, the landlord had noted that the issue with the ventilation system had been ongoing for more than a year, and that a contractor was required. A few days later, it noted that the issue had been referred back to it even though it was for its Mechanical and Electrical team’s contractor to investigate. It is not clear why the landlord had not taken appropriate steps to ensure that the required works were monitored so the problem could finally be resolved, mainly where it clearly knew that it had been ongoing for quite some time, and it had become aware of the fact that the issue had been incorrectly referred back to it. This was not appropriate and evidences a lack of an appropriately proactive and customer focused approach.
  3. On 7 July 2020, in her email to this Service, the resident said that the landlord’s contractor did not service the vent system and had told her that it would send it back to the landlord so another contractor could clean the vent pipes and investigate the issue further. In light of this, this Service will make a recommendation to the landlord to take appropriate action to ensure there is no further work needed to address the resident’s concerns.
  • Complaints handling
  1. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, this Service would consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  2. In this case, the landlord has failed to acknowledge in both its complaint responses of December 2019, and June 2020, that there had been an initial delay on its part in providing the complainant with a replacement oven and it did not explain why this was the case. It also did not identify the initial failure on its part to act upon its operatives’ recommendations about the ventilation system and the lack of update to the resident. This Service is of the view that this constitutes a failing in the complaint process as the landlord has not recognised and addressed its failings in its complaints responses.
  3. Whilst its stage 1 response referred to a missed appointment on 26 November 2019, which it said had resulted from a breakdown in communication at its end, the landlord has not compensated the resident for this. Its compensation policy states that, where requested, it will compensate residents where it fails to attend a repair appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice, so far as is reasonably practicable to do so. There is no evidence that the resident had requested this but given the service failure identified in this case, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the amount of compensation payable under its compensation policy (£15); landlords must not fetter their discretion when considering complaints. This Service has also not seen evidence that the landlord’s surveyor, had contacted the resident to provide her with further clarification as per its email to her on 16 December 2019, further to the issuance of its stage 1 response on the same day.
  4. Having said that, it is also noted that the landlord was, at various points throughout the duration of the complaints, evidently focused on trying to resolve the issues raised by undertaking inspections where appropriate and offering the resident additional options for a replacement oven.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that there was a delay in the landlord progressing the resident’s complaint, primarily following her further complaint in February 2020. However, the Ombudsman accepts that the ongoing pandemic and its impact upon repairs services may have resulted in delays in carrying out inspections and works that were required for the landlord to close the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the replacement of the oven at the property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the replacement of the carpet at the property.
  3.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the toilet at the property.
  4.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the air vent system at the property.
  5.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in that there was a delay on the landlord’s part in updating the resident and in offering her a replacement oven.
  2.  The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about staining to the carpet, though it would also have been appropriate for it to respond to the reports she had made about a potential health and safety hazard relating to the carpet.
  3.  The landlord responded to the resident’s multiple reports about blockages and the flush system to the toilet. It also arranged inspections and for a camera survey to take place. Having identified no fault with the system, it was appropriate that it took no further action.
  4.  The landlord did not act upon the recommendations submitted by its operatives regarding the ventilation system at the property. It acknowledged that there had been an issue with the system for a sustained period and its failure to act upon its contractors’ recommendations left the household inconvenienced.
  5.  The landlord has failed to acknowledge and accept its repairing delays and its communication failures, and did not suitably redress the impact of these failings on the complainant over the duration of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1.  The landlord to pay the complainant compensation of £200 within four weeks of the date of this report. This comprises:
  • £50 in respect of any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the oven replacement issue;
  • £50 in respect of any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the carpet complaint;
  • £50 in respect of any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the complaint about the air vent system;
  • £50 in respect of any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the service failures identified with the landlord’s complaints handling, including the £15 relating to the missed appointment of 26 November 2019.
  1.  The landlord to arrange an inspection of the property, in respect of the resident’s complaint about the carpet lifting. The landlord to write to the resident to provide her with the outcome of its inspection and its final decision on this issue, including timescales for any identified works.
  2.  The landlord to comply with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report and to confirm compliance by 30 March 2021.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to:
  • Review its staff training needs in relation to investigating and responding to complaints and calculating and awarding compensation. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at:

Dispute resolution e-learning – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).

  • Remind all staff of the importance of adhering to its compensation policy.