Cornwall Council (202117201)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117201

Cornwall Council

11 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the installation of LED lights and its response to the resident reporting experiencing electric shocks.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a council. The resident has said that he has autism and Asperger’s; the landlord has recorded on its records that the resident has a learning disability. There is a team of professionals in place to assist the resident and he has a support worker, and a representative, although he has not been assisted in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations for the supply of electricity, gas, water, and heating. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord will complete repairs within a reasonable time and will tell the resident when it will complete the repair. The resident must allow access for inspection and repairs after being given at least 24 hours’ notice. Under the tenancy agreement the resident also must not cause nuisance, harassment, use or threaten violence to anyone within the property, communal area or in the locality of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy contains a comprehensive list of repairs along with whether the landlord or resident is responsible and a timeframe for completion. Under the electrical category, the landlord is responsible for repairing unsafe electrical sockets or lighting within 24 hours, or any other non-safety related electrical repair within 20 working days. If a resident fails to give access for a repair the landlord will offer a second appointment. If there is a second no access the repair will be cancelled. The policy states that changing lightbulbs is the resident’s responsibility.
The risk of electrical hazards and shocks is one of the risks included within the Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme (HHSRS). Landlords are responsible for minimising or removing hazards within their properties.
The landlord defines ASB as “behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.” Once it receives a report of ASB the landlord will categorise it as either severe or nuisance. It will respond to severe ASB within 24 hours and to nuisance within 5 working days. The policy sets out a number of steps the landlord can take to tackle ASB from warnings to legal action.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, which was in use at the time of the complaint, a complaint is defined as “any feedback where you are dissatisfied with the service you have received.” It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and provide a response within 10 working days unless it agrees an extension with the resident. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2 the landlord’s tenant panel will consider the complaint and provide a response. The policy does not state a timeframe in which it will provide its stage 2 response.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Paragraph 1.2 states that a complaint should be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord also has a compensation policy which says that it can consider offering compensation for serious service failure. Compensation should be appropriate, proportionate and restorative. It may offer compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The policy contains a table with example amounts based on service failure and impact on the resident.

Scope of investigation

Within emails to the landlord and to this Service the resident has raised a large number of different concerns and issues, including matters arising after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is only able to investigate matters which have been brought to the landlord as a formal complaint, and which have progressed through its internal complaints process. The resident has also made other complaints to the landlord, which have completed its internal complaints process, but which he has not asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Therefore, only the complaints detailed within the complaint definition above are considered in this report.
In addition, due to the nature and volume of email evidence submitted to the Ombudsman, the summary of events below does not set out all the communications between the resident and the landlord. Whilst all of the evidence has been carefully considered, this report merely provides an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 24 January 2020 to report that his living room light was not working. The landlord’s records say that it wrote to him with an appointment date that day, as it was not able to call him back.
On 16 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to ask about electrical safety. He said he had a meter of some type, and he was concerned about the readings he was getting.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2020 to make a complaint (the first complaint), that he had endured several electric shocks and believed there was a problem with the electrical wiring in the property. He also said that he had been harassed in his personal space by someone having vandalised his garden by spraying weedkiller. Further, he said that the landlord was wrong to speak to him about breach of tenancy following an incident outside a local shop.
In an internal email of 17 June 2020 the landlord said it had raised a repair for an electrician to check the electrics. It said it checked the previous repair in January 2020 and it was a no access. The current repair was booked for 1 July 2020, but the electrician cancelled the appointment as the landlord had put in place a 2-person visiting rule, but no-one from the landlord was available to attend with the electrician.
On 25 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged his complaint. It said it aimed to respond by 3 July 2020, but sent a further holding email on that date. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the first complaint on 9 July 2020. In its response it:
1. Said it had arranged for an electrician to attend and it would contact him to tell him when this would take place.
2. Did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the use of weedkiller.
3. Said it had spoken to him about his tenancy previously as the police had issued him with an ASB warning in April 2019.
4. Explained how to escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 July 2020 about an ASB tenancy warning he had received from it that day. He said this related to an incident outside a local shop for which the police banned him from the shop. He said that he sometimes faces hate and prejudice from members of the public. The landlord had “hounded” him with enforcement actions but had not acted on his complaint about the use of weedkiller, trespass, and vandalism to his garden. The landlord replied on 27 July 2020, saying it was standard practice to serve a warning after the police serve an ASB notice on a resident for an incident “well within the locality”.
On 14 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and said that it was quick to issue him with a warning but had taken no action over his complaint about trespass, vandalism to his plants and the use of weedkiller. He also said his living room light was still not working and he was concerned about the wiring. The landlord replied the same day and said residents can use weedkiller and it had no rules about this. It also said it would look into his electrical repair. The landlord’s records show there was a no access for the electrician on 7 September 2020.
The landlord raised a new repair for an electrician on 6 October 2020, which its records say was a no access on 14 October 2020. The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 November 2020 to say that he had suffered an electric shock from a light switch despite having told the landlord about the problem numerous times. The landlord re-booked the electrician who attended on 17 November 2020, replaced the bathroom light, and replaced the lightbulb for the living room light.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2020 about the repairs. He said he did not want LED lightbulbs fitted and wanted the landlord to remove them. Between 18 November 2020 and 20 November 2020, the landlord discussed the repair visit in internal emails. It said this was the third repairs appointment for the electrician and the first time the resident had allowed entry. The resident’s behaviour had been challenging and there was evidence of tampering with the electrics.
On 14 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord again. He said he had had an electric shock from the living room light switch and that the landlord had installed an LED bulb in the bathroom against his wishes. In response, in an internal email, the landlord said it had raised an emergency repair that day for an electrician and that it would urgently arrange a full electrical test for the property. It emailed the resident to let him know that the electrician would attend that day. It also said that replacement of lightbulbs is the resident’s responsibility, bathroom bulbs are fitted to meet health and safety requirements, and residents can change their bulbs if they wish. The landlord’s repair records say that the electrician tried to attend that day but there was a no access.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2020 and said he had again had an electric shock from the living room light switch, and that the landlord was ignoring him. In an internal email on 21 December 2020 the landlord said the electrician had replaced the light switch and some lightbulbs on 17 November 2020. The electrician had tried to attend on 14 December 2020 and had booked a new appointment for 13 January 2021. The landlord’s records say that this appointment had to be cancelled as the electrician was ill.
On 2 February 2021 the police emailed the landlord and said they had visited the resident to remind him about his repair appointment on 15 February 2021. They said the resident had agreed to this appointment. However, on that date there was a no access.
The resident emailed his representative on 8 May 2021 and said he was still getting electric shocks from his light switch. The representative emailed the landlord the following day and asked if an electrical safety check had been carried out, as the problem had been reported several times. On 10 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, with a letter, to acknowledge his complaint (the second complaint). The landlord said the complaint was that the resident was getting shocks from the light switches in the property.
In an internal email on 10 May 2021 the landlord asked for a full electrical check to be booked with its electrician. On 10 June 2021 it confirmed it had requested this and asked the electrician to try to call the resident to agree an appointment. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 June 2021 to say that the electrician had tried to call him without success. It asked him to call the electrician to book an appointment. As the resident did not call the electrician the landlord emailed the electrician on 28 July 2021 to ask for an appointment.
On 29 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say he still had concerns about the electrical wiring. He said lightbulbs do not work or last only a short time, and he was still not happy about the LED light in his bathroom. The landlord replied that day and said it had asked the electrician for an appointment to complete the electrical check but that the resident would need to allow access. It said if any faults were found they would be repaired.
Between 9 August 2021 and 10 August 2021, the resident and the landlord exchanged further emails in which he asked for the LED light in the bathroom to be removed as he said it was dangerous and that the landlord did not care about “clinical risks”. He also asked it to: change the lightbulb in the kitchen; repair a window which had been smashed by youths years ago; respond to his previous complaint about the use of weedkiller. The landlord suggested an appointment for 16 August 2021 for the electrical check, but said it would not change the LED light unless it was faulty. It also said it would raise a repair for the window. Regarding weedkiller, it reiterated that this was available to buy and there was no restriction on its use in its tenancy agreements.
The electrician completed a NICEIC, or industry standard, electrical check on 16 August 2021 and produced a report. The report said the overall condition was unsatisfactory and it noted 4 “C2 – potentially dangerous” issues requiring urgent action.
On 18 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again about his broken window and neighbour’s use of weedkiller.
The landlord emailed the resident’s support worker on 1 September 2021, saying it had tried to organise electrical testing for the past year, which was completed in August 2021. It said no faults were found and there was no basis for the resident reporting electric shocks.
On 10 September 2021 the landlord’s record says it received an email about alleged verbal abuse from a neighbour; it is not clear who made the report or who the alleged perpetrator was. On 24 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that a neighbour called him stupid. He said this was in response to him having asked if that neighbour had been the one using weedkiller in the communal areas. However, he also said it was possible the neighbour was speaking on his telephone. The landlord’s records say that it spoke to the neighbour that day, and they made counter allegations against the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2021 and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord to ask it to provide its stage 1 response to the second complaint. The landlord provided a reply to the Ombudsman on 9 November 2021, however, it said it had not provided this to the resident.
On 29 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, complaining again about the LED lightbulb in his bathroom and saying he did not use the light. He also had changed the bulb in his living room light as “they seem to harm”. He also said the landlord had not addressed that an “abusive neighbour” was spraying weedkiller, and that it had not responded to his complaints of ASB.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022 and told it to provide its stage 1 response to the second complaint to the resident. The landlord did this on 28 February 2022. In its response it:
1. Apologised that it had not sent a response to him on 9 November 2021 when it responded to this Service.
2. Said that his representative had contacted it on 9 May 2021 about the electrical issues and it had treated this as a service request, not a complaint.
3. Confirmed the electrical check was completed, “no faults found and system safe”. It had made several attempts to check the electrics before this, but it had difficulty getting access. The last time the electrician gained access he had changed the lightbulbs as a goodwill gesture.
4. Said the resident had not logged a further complaint about the electrics using the complaints process and so it was unable to respond on a subject it knew nothing about.
5. Said no ASB or vandalism issues had been raised as a formal complaint. The police and council had helped to calm ASB issues. The youths reported by the resident were not the landlord’s residents and this would be dealt with by the police. There was no vandalism committed by neighbours and the use of weedkiller in communal areas was not prohibited.
6. Did not uphold the complaint and explained how it could be escalated if the resident remained dissatisfied.
On 23 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and this Service to ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord, in an internal email on 12 May 2022, said that it had requested an appeal panel to consider its stage 2 response.
The landlord emailed the electrician on 9 June 2022 to ask for a quote to carry out the works recommended within the electrical check report. The electrician quoted to install a new consumer unit, or fuse box, and the landlord approved this. On 20 June 2022 the electrician emailed the landlord and said he had not been able to contact the resident to book an appointment.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s representative. It said:
1. It had reviewed the complaint which was about:
  1. The resident getting electric shocks from the light switches.
  2. Was there an electrical safety certificate following a check?
2. The electrical safety check was completed on 16 August 2021 with an overall assessment of unsatisfactory as 4 C2 repairs were needed, and other recommendations had been made. However, an order was not raised to complete these works at the time but had subsequently been raised. There had been many attempts to contact him by telephone which had been unsuccessful.
3. His complaint was upheld, as the electrical repairs still needed to be completed, but he would need to allow access for the repairs.
4. It would complete a new inspection and complete all the outstanding electrical repairs. It would also install dimmer switches to help the resident with his lighting.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and explained how to contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process until December 2022

On 11 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again to complain about the use of weedkiller in the communal areas.
On 30 September 2022 and 8 November 2022, the electrician emailed the landlord to say that it had not been able to contact the resident to book an appointment for the repairs. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2022 and said he was still getting electric shocks from the light switch.
Between 17 November 2022 and 24 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord 4 times to report that his neighbours had been shouting at him and calling him names. He said he had just been feeding the birds. He also said a neighbour had been taking photographs of him.
The landlord has told this Service that at the date of this report the electrical safety check repairs are still outstanding. The resident recently allowed access for the electrician, however, he could not complete the works due to the condition of the property and the landlord has provided evidence of this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident first raised the issue of ASB as part of the first complaint on 14 June 2020, when he said he had been harassed in his personal space by someone having vandalised his garden by spraying weedkiller. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not address this aspect of his complaint, which was a failing (considered further below).
The resident raised the issue again on 24 July 2020 and said the landlord had not acted on his complaint about the use of weedkiller, trespass, and vandalism. The property is a flat, there is no evidence that the resident has a private garden, and the landlord has said that the external areas are communal. Following a further email from the resident, the landlord confirmed on 14 August 2020 that it had no policy or rule against the use of weedkiller by residents in communal areas.
It would have been helpful if the landlord had also explained that this did not amount to ASB under the definition of ASB within its policy, and that residents could not trespass in communal areas. When the resident raised the issue of weedkiller again in August 2021 the landlord repeated its response. It did this again within its stage 1 response to the second complaint of 28 February 2022. Its approach was consistent, fair, and reasonable.
The resident also raised that his window had been smashed by youths years ago, and the landlord agreed to raise a repair for this. The landlord did not treat this as ASB, which was reasonable as the resident had not, or was not able to identify, a perpetrator and he said the incident had happened a long time ago. Within its stage 1 response to the second complaint the landlord also confirmed this would have been a police matter as the youths were not its residents.
When the resident reported ASB on 14 October 2021 the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator the same day, well within its ASB policy timeframe for nuisance. As the resident himself suggested he could have been mistaken about the incident, and the alleged perpetrator made a counter allegation, it was reasonable for the landlord to not take any further action under its policy.
The landlord considered the resident’s reports of ASB, in challenging circumstances, worked with his support worker, the police and other professionals involved. It followed its ASB policy, and its approach was fair in all of the circumstances. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of LED lights and its response to the resident reporting experiencing electric shocks

When the resident reported an issue with his light in January 2020 the landlord raised a repair, which was a no access. The landlord did not follow its policy and offer a new appointment which was a failing. The landlord also appears to have failed to reply to the resident’s email about electrical safety in April 2020.
Following the first complaint which the resident made on 14 June 2020 the landlord raised a repair on 17 June 2020. The landlord could have treated the resident’s repair as for unsafe lighting and attended within 24 hours under its policy. However, it arranged a repair for 1 July 2020 which was within its 20 working day policy timeframe for non-safety related repairs. It is possible the landlord had diagnosed the repair as non-safety related, or it decided to give good notice of the appointment to the resident to try to avoid a further no access, which would have been reasonable.
The appointment on 1 July 2020 was cancelled due to the landlord not providing a member of staff to accompany the electrician. The landlord had put in place a 2-person visiting rule for safety reasons but had failed to make the necessary arrangements to attend, which delayed the repair. The landlord then did not rebook the appointment which was a second failing. Following the resident contacting the landlord again about the electrics it arranged a new appointment for 7 September 2020 which was a no access. The landlord positively booked a new appointment for 14 November 2020 which was also a no access.
The resident granted access to the electrician, accompanied by a member of the landlord’s staff, on 17 November 2020. The electrician carried out repairs and replaced lightbulbs using LED bulbs. The electrician went beyond what was required under the landlord’s repairs policy as its states residents are responsible for lightbulbs.
Following the repairs, the resident complained about the use of LED bulbs as he said they were harmful to him. However, he did not provide any evidence to support his claims. LED lightbulbs are a standard type of lightbulb in use and readily available to buy. They were supplied and fitted by an electrician and there was no reason not to use them. The resident’s requests for them to be changed were unreasonable, however the landlord correctly told him, several times, that he could change them himself for lightbulbs of his preference.
The resident also said that he had suffered from electric shocks from the light switches several times between 14 December 2020 and November 2022. Following the first report the landlord arranged an electrician to attend the same day, within its 24 hours response time as per its policy, however there was a no access. The landlord proactively booked a new appointment for 13 January 2021 which was cancelled due to factors beyond the landlord’s control. It rebooked the appointment and even told the local police who were able to inform the resident about it in person. However, this still resulted in a no access. The landlord had taken reasonable and enhanced steps to try to secure access for the electrician.
Following the second complaint the landlord requested a full electrical test to be carried out which was a sensible course of action to have taken. However, it delayed for a month before asking the electrician to call the resident to book an appointment and there was no reason for this delay, which was a failing. The next period of delay was caused by the resident until the appointment was booked for, and the check carried out on, 16 August 2021.
The landlord told the residents’ support worker in September 2021, and the resident in its stage 1 response to the second complaint in February 2022, that no faults had been found during the electrical check. This was not correct, as the electrician’s report listed 4 points where urgent repairs were needed, and not advising of this was a failing. The landlord did not request a quote for these works until June 2022, 10 months after the electrical check. That was an unacceptable delay where repairs had been identified as urgent.
Notwithstanding the difficulty in gaining access, to comply with its repairs policy and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and the HHSRS, the landlord should have raised these repairs and attempted to complete them as soon as possible after the electrical safety check. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted these failings, and said it should have arranged the repairs sooner, and apologised for this.
The Ombudsman recognises that the nature and volume of emails sent by the resident to the landlord may have made dealing with this aspect of his complaint more challenging. In addition, the Ombudsman notes the difficulty the landlord has had in obtaining access to carry out repairs. However, failing to follow its repairs policy, and misinterpreting the electrical safety report, or giving incorrect information about its contents, delayed its actions in trying to remedy the urgent issues found. There was maladministration.
As a result, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect the seriousness of the delay in acknowledging and raising important electrical safety repairs, and the distress this caused him. This amount is lower than the Ombudsman would ordinarily order in these circumstances, as the landlord did ultimately take significant steps to complete the necessary repairs and ‘put things right’, but the resident’s own actions have prevented this from happening.
Equally, this Service would ordinarily order the landlord to carry out the repairs within a set time and monitor for compliance by a given date. However, the Ombudsman accepts, after considering comprehensive evidence provided by the landlord, that carrying out the repairs is not a simple task in the resident’s specific circumstances. To enable the repairs to be completed further work needs to be done by the professionals supporting the resident. They need to ensure the property is clean and safe to work in, and that the areas the electrician needs to work in are fully accessible. As this could take an indeterminate time to achieve, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation in relation to this rather than a timebound order and encourages the landlord to continue working with the other professionals, as it already is, to achieve this.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident made the first complaint on 14 June 2020 and the landlord failed to acknowledge it within its 3 working day timeframe under its policy. It did not request an extension but told the resident it needed more time, and replied on 9 July 2020, which was 18 working days later and outside of its 10-working day timeframe which was a failing, and a breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about weedkiller in breach of paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
The resident made the second complaint, via his representative, on 8 May 2021 and the landlord acknowledged it within 3 working days. However, it failed to provide a stage 1 response until the Ombudsman asked it to. It provided a response to this Service on 9 November 2021 but failed to send a response to the resident. Following a further email from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 February 2022. This was 206 working days after the resident made the second complaint and was an unacceptable delay in breach of its policy and the Code.
While the landlord did apologise for not sending the response to him at the same time as it sent a response to this Service, it did not offer any compensation for the delay. It also said it had treated the second complaint as a service request, which was a failing. It was an expression of dissatisfaction which the landlord had acknowledged at the time as a complaint.
Within its response the landlord gave incorrect information about the electrical safety check as noted above. It also said no further complaint had been logged and it was unable to respond on a subject it knew nothing about. This was not true as the resident had regularly raised the issue of electrical shocks and lighting and could not have expressed his dissatisfaction any clearer. The landlord’s statement was disingenuous. The landlord also responded again to the first complaint issues of ASB and use of weedkiller, which was not part of the second complaint.
While the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 23 March 2022, the landlord did not start to arrange a panel, as per its complaints policy at that time, until 12 May 2022, almost 2 months later. It provided its stage 2 response on 23 June 2022, which was 62 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. While the landlord’s policy at the time did not contain a timeframe for stage 2 responses (which was a failing in itself), it failed to comply with paragraph 5.13 of the Code and its delay was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord considered the complaint raised in the second complaint and accepted that there had been a service failure. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and set out the actions it would take to put things right. The landlord however failed to apologise for the delay in its response or to offer any compensation in that regard.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. It did not follow its policy regarding its timeframe to reply to stage 1 complaints and had no timeframe for stage 2 complaints. It failed to fully respond to the first complaint. It failed to respond to the second complaint until asked to do so by the Ombudsman, then said it had not treated it as a complaint despite having acknowledged it as one initially. Its stage 1 response to the second complaint was confused and contained matters from the first complaint. It took an unacceptable amount of time to respond to the stage 2 complaint and was in breach of the Code.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord updated its complaints policy in 2023 and it is now compliant with the Code. Therefore, no orders have been made in relation to its previous complaints policy.
When considering an appropriate remedy, the Ombudsman takes into account its Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. The Ombudsman has also taken into account the landlord’s challenges in communicating with the resident and the volume of emails it received from the resident, of which only a small sample have been mentioned within this report. The Ombudsman has also taken into account the inconvenience, distress, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. An order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident to reflect this impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the installation of LED lights and its response to the resident reporting experiencing electric shocks.
2. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrical issues as it did not always follow its repairs policy on no accesses and rebooking appointments. It also gave incorrect information about the outcome of the electrical safety check and there was an unreasonable delay in raising a job to carry out the urgent repairs identified.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as the landlord did not follow its complaint response timeframes under its policy or the Code. Its responses were incomplete and inaccurate. Its handling of the second complaint was incorrect and there was an unreasonable delay in its response. There was also an unreasonable delay in its stage 2 response.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB as the landlord followed its ASB policy. It responded to issues which were not ASB and investigated the resident’s ASB complaint. Its approach was fair and reasonable.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its complaints handling failures.
2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £600 made up of:
  1. £200 to reflect the distress caused by it providing incorrect information and delaying in raising urgent electrical repairs.
  2. £400 to reflect the impact of its complaints handling failures on the resident.
3. Confirm whether additional training has been completed by its complaints handling staff following its new complaints policy. If no further training has been completed it is to arrange this.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord continue to work with the resident, and other professionals, to enable safe access to be able to carry out the electrical repairs needed. This is a recommendation rather than an order as the Ombudsman recognises it is likely this cannot be achieved within a short set timeframe but will require intensive work to complete.