Futures Housing Group Limited (202310685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310685

Futures Housing Group Limited

29 August 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:
1. The length of time the landlord’s insurer took to process the subsidence insurance claim, assess the property and instruct the works to commence.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme sets out that this Service may not consider matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this case the insurer and its actions are governed by a different Ombudsman service (The Financial Ombudsman Service). This Service is therefore unable to consider the action or inactions of the insurer. As such the following complaint is not within the jurisdiction of this Service under paragraph 42(j):
1. The length of time the landlord’s insurer took to process the subsidence insurance claim, assess the property and instruct the works to commence.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a tenancy with the landlord (the type of tenancy is not specified on the tenancy agreement) at the property which is a 3 bedroom end terrace house. She has lived at the property since 2012. The landlord has a record of mobility issues for the resident. It also noted in its internal correspondence that the resident was elderly. This Service has seen correspondence from the resident and also another individual living at the property. This individual is described as a lodger on the tenancy agreement. It is not clear if this was varied as the resident advised this Service that they were joint tenants of the property. For ease of reference, correspondence from both occupants will be referred to as being from ‘the resident’ in this case.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. The following are classed as priority repairs and will be attended the same day to make safe (further visits may be necessary to fully resolve the problem):
  1. Ceiling plaster dangerously loose.
  2. Insecure external door.
  3. Structurally unsecure.
Further information was available on the landlord’s public facing website in respect of repairs which stated as follows:
1. The landlord acknowledges the need to take extra care of residents who may be particularly vulnerable.
2. It may find that more than a repair is needed. When this is the case, a resident may need to wait longer than for a standard repair. In such instances it will make safe and carry out the full replacement at a later date. A repair which is a planned repair may mean a wait of up to 6 months or more for the job to be completed, unless there is a new risk or sudden deterioration.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Falling plasterwork and insecure external doors and windows are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

Summary of events

On 10 November 2022 the landlord’s surveyor raised a claim with the landlord’s insurers in respect of subsidence, which they had identified at the resident’s property that day. The landlord’s surveyor advised the insurer that they had first attended the property on 14 September 2020 and had raised an order for minor remedial plaster repairs at the time. They had attended again 2 years later, on 10 November 2022, and had noticed that more fractures had appeared and the initial fractures had increased.
On 28 November 2022 the resident enquired with the landlord as to replastering which had been due the following week. It is not clear if the landlord responded, however it noted internally that this should have been postponed pending the insurance claim so that the loss adjustors could examine the extent of the damage. The loss adjuster subsequently attended to assess the property on 14 December 2022.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord asked its surveyor if there was an update from the insurance company. The landlord advised the surveyor that the resident had reported as follows:
1. Plaster coming away from the walls.
2. A crack in the kitchen floor.
3. The resident was worried that the property was getting worse.
4. The resident had reported that both neighbours were also experiencing issues with cracks, but had not reported this due to their vulnerabilities. It is not clear if the neighbours were tenants of the landlord.
That same day the surveyor contacted the insurer to ask for an update, and subsequently forwarded photographs of the property to the insurer on 5 January 2023. The surveyor advised the insurer that the cracks had deteriorated considerably following their initial inspection.
On 10 January 2023 the insurer enquired with the landlord why the matter had been identified in early 2022 but not reported to it until November 2022. It asked what action the landlord had taken. The landlord responded on 13 January 2023 and explained that remedial works had been carried out at the property in 2011 for structural repairs. It had instructed a contractor to carry out a survey in 2022 and the report stated that minor plaster repairs should be undertaken. During the period of the works being raised and the contractor starting work, the cracks had considerably worsened and its surveyor had therefore raised a claim for possible subsidence.
On 16 January 2023 the insurer advised the resident that site investigations would take place in February 2023, and a decision on liability and actions required would be made in March 2023.
On 14 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as the site investigation had not taken place. The resident advised that the cracks were worsening, plaster was constantly falling off, and the movement was preventing the windows and doors from properly closing. They said that they had not received any updates, and expressed their concern that something could happen. The landlord asked the insurer for an update the following day (15 February 2023).
The landlord’s surveyor contacted the insurer on 17 February 2023. The surveyor provided photographs from its repairs team along with an email expressing the concerns of its repairs team about the plaster falling off, and a brick having snapped in half.
That same day the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. They had reported cracks and subsidence to the landlord in early 2022 (this Service has not seen this report). A surveyor had attended on 7 June 2022 and 1 November 2022, and they had been informed that it would be handled as an insurance claim.
2. The insurer had attended their property on 14 December 2022, and it had informed them that that it would be carrying out borehole tests and a drainage survey in February 2023, with a decision on the property being made in March 2023. Despite several calls, the landlord had been unable to confirm when these tests/surveys would start.
3. Since the insurers visit the cracks had got substantially worse, new cracks were appearing daily, plaster was falling off walls, and windows and doors were not opening and shutting properly.
4. A contractor had attended on 16 February 2023 to adjust some doors but had been unwilling to do so because they felt it was unsafe.
5. The issues were causing substantial amounts of stress and emotional turmoil.
6. They asked for the following as a matter of urgency:
  1. To be informed when the borehole tests would begin.
  2. For a senior member of the landlord’s staff to visit the property to assess the worsening damage.
  3. For the landlord to provide a plan going forward.
The landlord responded that same day and advised that it was chasing the insurer and that it had not heard from the insurer since 9January 2023. The resident reiterated their request for a senior member of staff to visit, and to be provided with an action plan on 19 January, 21 February and 28 February2023. On each occasion the landlord advised that it was still seeking an update from the insurer.
The resident submitted a complaint around 14 March 2023 (this has not been provided to this Service). The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 March 2023 and advised it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 March 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the lack of communication, and it appreciated the frustration caused.
2. The insurance team had required more information from the landlord regarding the site investigations. It had provided this and the insurer would be contacting the resident to arrange an appointment for the trial holes to be excavated.
3. It had enquired to see whether its Assets Project Manager could visit the property. It would let the resident know if this could be accommodated.
4. It had discussed the resident’s request for a plan with its surveyor, who advised that once the insurance company confirm their actions, it will be able to provide an accurate update.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2023 and stated that they did not regard the complaint as having been dealt with, and that they had not been contacted regarding an appointment for the holes to be drilled. They chased an update on 13 April 2023. On 14 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the individual it needed to speak to was unavailable, but that it had left a message for them. It advised it would keep the resident updated. That same day the landlord advised the resident that an appointment had been arranged for 9 May 2023 for the insurers subsidence team to attend.
On 2 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised as follows:
1. The insurers subsidence team had attended on 9 May 2023, and the tests had been carried out. The resident had been told that they would be advised of the results within a week, but this had not happened.
2. The condition of the property was worsening considerably, and it was now over a year since they had first reported the problems.
3. They requested their complaint be escalated to stage 2.
4. They asked for advice on the procedure for withdrawing their rent payments. They stated they did not want to do so, but that they had been left with few other options.
The landlord noted internally on 6 June 2023 as follows:
1. The resident had advised that the ceiling was coming away from the walls, and that there was a growing hole in the kitchen floor. The resident had requested someone senior attend the property.
2. It had contacted the subsidence team who had advised that the data was being processed and this normally took 6-8 weeks.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 7 June 2023, and advised that it would respond within 20 working days. It also noted internally that the insurer had left a voicemail for the resident to advise that it was waiting on results from the investigation, and there was nothing it could do to speed it up.
That same day, the landlord noted internally that it may be able to offer a decant for the resident whilst the works were undertaken. It further noted that it would need to know the extent of the repair works stipulated by the insurance contractors so it could ascertain how long the decant would be.
The resident chased a response to the complaint on 14 June 2023. The landlord advised that it was still investigating, and that it would provide its response by 30 June 2023. The resident responded outlining their frustrations, and that they had contacted the MP and social media. They stated that they had “spent a fortune” on heating, as the doors and windows did not close property. They stated that a senior member of staff had not contacted them.
On 16 June 2023 the insurer advised the landlord that it had submitted its report with the findings and recommendations. The insurer advised the landlord that as it was not working under delegated authority, it could not discuss the contents of the report with the landlord.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident was elderly, and was unable to have their grandchildren over due to the issues. They were also worried the house would collapse. Following internal discussions, the following day it noted internally as follows:
1. It did not decant automatically. This was a long process involving finding alternative and suitable accommodation.
2. A potential option was a management move, but this would be a permanent move.
3. It would only consider these options if the findings of the insurance report supported such a move. It did not have this information and so it was not in a position to offer anything with regard to moving or a decant until it knew the extent of the works required.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the lack of ownership in the case.
2. It acknowledged that there had been delays in providing the resident with specific information regarding the scheduled tests and surveys.
3. The resident had initially reported the window issue and subsidence on 24 August 2020. A surveyor had carried out an inspection on 14 September 2020 and requested a structural survey and raised an order for remedial works for 30 September 2020. The next time the landlord heard from the resident was on 10 April 2022 about structural movement in the property and the windows having a draft. A job was raised and a surveyor was booked to attend on 17 May 2022. This was rescheduled at the resident’s request to 7 June 2022. On 15 July 2022, the surveyor reported the need for planned works for brick and plaster repairs. It was in the process of scheduling these repairs, and a second inspection by the surveyor took place on 10 November 2022. The surveyor noticed there were more fractures appearing and the initial fractures had increased since the plasterwork. The surveyor therefore initiated an insurance claim for potential subsidence as they did not agree with the findings presented in the report. During the second inspection, the surveyor had thoroughly explained the course of action to the resident.
4. Its loss adjusters had been instructed to handle the claim. Their role was to assess the damage and determine if it fell within the terms of the landlord’s insurance policy. They were also responsible for investigating the cause of the damage and providing assistance in resolving the issue. The claims team had attended the property on 14 December 2022 and an action plan set a target completion date for the site investigations in February 2023, with a decision on claim liability and required actions expected in March 2023.
5. Before the investigations could proceed, further information was required regarding when the initial damage had been reported. The landlord had provided the details of the previous remedial works carried out, and the contractor’s report which had recommended minor plaster repairs to the insurer
6. On 6 February 2023 the resident had reported an issue with 3 internal doors not closing (not seen by this Service). Its repairs team had visited the property on 16 February 2023, had taken pictures and informed the insurance team of the worsening damage and possible subsidence. The insurance team had passed the details to a specialist in subsidence investigation and repair, to arrange an appointment for trial holes excavation. The specialist advised the landlord that the property had previously been underpinned, which led to extended discussions between the landlord and the insurance team, resulting in a delay in completing the investigation.
7. The subsidence specialist had attended the property on 9 May 2023, however the landlord had not received the results of these tests until 2 June 2023. It apologised for this.
8. On 16 June 2023 it had received an update from the insurance team in respect of the findings and recommendations. This was being reviewed by a consultant who would determine the subsequent course of action. It would continue to monitor the progress and actively pursue any new information.
9. It strongly advised the resident not to withhold rent as it could initiate its recovery action in accordance with its policies and procedures. If the resident wised to explore this option, they should seek independent legal advice.
10. In respect of a plan, it could offer a decant during the repair works, however it would need to assess the extent of the repairs specified by the insurance contractors to determine the duration of the decant. This would only proceed with the resident’s consent and depending on the insurers report. It had noted the resident’s request not to move to a bed and breakfast and for her dogs not to be put in kennels (not seen by this Service).
11. It had noted the resident’s request to have the repairs completed before the onset of winter. It had informed her that it did not have any specific dates for when the work would commence, as the insurers had not provided confirmation regarding the start of the repairs. It would continue to monitor the progress and actively pursue updates from the insurance team.
12. It acknowledged the resident’s request for a senior member of staff to attend the property. It advised that the insurer had access to a team of skilled structural engineers who had the expertise to thoroughly assess and monitor the situation before providing a suitable resolution.
13. As a gesture of goodwill and acknowledgment of the inconvenience caused, it was willing to offer compensation. It however respected the resident’s preference for the property to be restored rather than receiving compensation. (This Service has not had sight of this correspondence from the resident.)
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 15 July 2023.
The landlord advised this Service on 15 August 2024 that the resident had commenced a legal case in respect of the subsidence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

At the date of this investigation, the Ombudsman had enquired with the landlord but had received no evidence that the issues had progressed to formal court action. As such the matters are within the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence

From the correspondence seen between the landlord and the insurer, it is clear that the landlord’s surveyor first attended the property on 14 September 2020. This Service has not seen the report following this visit, however it is appreciated that this was 4 years ago and so may not be available. Following that visit, the surveyor stated that they had raised an order for minor remedial plaster repairs to take place on 30 September 2020. It is not clear whether these works were carried out or whether the resident reported that the works resolved the issue, however due to the passage of time, it is acknowledged that such information may not be available to the landlord. It is therefore not possible for this Service to comment on the landlord’s actions from 2020.
The landlord advised that this issue was not reported again until 10 April 2022 when the resident reported structural movement in the property and drafts from the windows. This Service has seen that a job was raised by the landlord and a surveyor was booked (which was rescheduled at the resident’s request to 7 June 2022). The landlord stated that the surveyor’s report from July 2022 (not provided to this Service), outlined the need for planned works for brick and plaster repairs. It is noted that the landlord’s repairs policy states that such planned works can take up to 6 months to commence. A second surveyor inspection took place on 10 November 2022 at which point potential subsidence was identified, and a claim was raised with the landlord’s insurers that same day. This was appropriate and timely action to take given the deterioration noted. This Service however has not seen any evidence that the landlord took any action at this stage to consider the risk posed to the resident, who was vulnerable by way of their age and mobility issues. It also did not provide any evidence that it had considered ways to reduce the risk at the property, or whether it carried out any ‘make safe’ repairs in line with its repairs policy.
The resident made the landlord aware on 3 January 2023 that the property was deteriorating, that plaster was coming away from the walls, and that the floor had cracked. The surveyor confirmed the resident’s concerns that the cracks had deteriorated considerably following the initial inspection. Although the landlord subsequently chased the insurer for an update, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s concerns in considering any short term emergency repairs or steps to reduce the risk to the resident. Falling plaster would be considered a hazard under the HHSRS, and as such it was not reasonable for the landlord to not respond or take action to reduce the risk following this report, particularly with it being aware of the household vulnerabilities. This Service has seen correspondence from the resident that a contractor had attended on 16 February 2023 to adjust some doors but had been unwilling to do so because they felt it was unsafe. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the finding of its contractor or sought to consider any further action to reduce the risk in the property or to secure the property. This was not appropriate.
Following the resident’s escalation request (of 2 June 2023) and their concern that they were unable to have their grandchildren over at the property, the landlord considered whether it could offer a temporary or permanent decant. This was an appropriate consideration in light of the reported condition of the property, and the impact it was having on the resident. It noted however that such a decision would be dependent on the findings of the insurer. Although this was reasonable as the insurer would be able to clarify the extent of the works, the landlord was not reliant on the insurer as it could consider a decant of its own accord if it considered the property to be a hazard to the health and safety of the resident . Although the landlord demonstrated that it was trying to assist the resident, there is no evidence that it had considered a risk assessment of their situation or the impact on the resident who had mobility issues which could impact her vulnerability when faced with falling plaster. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord had considered the resident’s individual needs or that it had done all it could to reduce the risk to the resident.
Although it is not clear if the neighbours were tenants of the landlord, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concern about their vulnerable neighbours properties also suffering from the same issues, which she reported on 3 January 2023, nor the worsening condition of the property reported in February 2023. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord was waiting for the insurer to take action, there is no evidence that the landlord had acted in respect of the concerns to try to reduce the risk to the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the reports of the issues impacting the neighbour’s properties. It therefore failed to demonstrate that it a taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident outlined (on 14 June 2023) that they believed the subsidence had impacted the closure of the doors and windows, which had caused an increase in their heating costs. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or considered any redress in respect of this. It is noted that the landlord did not dispute that the doors and windows were insecure and it can therefore reasonably be assumed that this would lead to draughts in the property. Insecure external doors and windows are considered to be security and safety risks under the HHSRS. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations in respect of this. It is also noted that the landlord’s repairs policy states that such repair issues will be attended to make safe within 24 hours. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out such an emergency repair. If it had deemed that this was not possible, it should have communicated its reasons for this to the resident. The landlord’s failure to respond to this concern was not appropriate, particularly given the vulnerable nature of the household who may be more susceptible to the impact of a cold property.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was not proactive, and lacked transparency from the correspondence seen by this Service. The insurers loss adjuster attended the property on 14 December 2022. This was over a month after the issue had been identified. This Service cannot comment on this timeframe as the loss adjuster is not a member of the Scheme, however during this time, this Service would expect the landlord to have kept in regular and proactive communication with the resident to update them. Evidence of such has not been seen by this Service. The landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate a resident focused approach in dealing with a matter involving an insurance claim.
The resident requested a senior member of the landlord’s staff visit the property, and an action plan of works on 17 February 2023. The landlord’s response from the same day did not acknowledge this request, and instead it only advised that it was chasing the insurer. This was not appropriate as the resident’s requests, which were not unreasonable, should have at least have been acknowledged by the landlord. The resident reiterated this request on 19 January, 21 February and 28 February 2023. At no point during this time period did the landlord respond to the residents requests. The landlord failed to advise whether this was something it would be able to accommodate or give any reasons for this.
The landlord did not respond to the residents requests for a senior member of staff to attend, or an action plan until after the resident submitted a complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response (from 28 March 2023) apologised for the lack of communication and the frustration caused. It also advised that it would see if the resident’s request for a senior member of staff to attend could be accommodated, and that an action plan would be provided once it had heard from the insurer. It is appreciated that the landlord was restricted in the details it could provide to the resident until the insurer had confirmed this, and this was something the landlord had been chasing. It is not however clear why it had taken the landlord from 17 February to 28 March 2023 to consider the resident’s request for a senior member of staff to attend. This delay of over a month was not explained, and had caused frustration to the resident.
There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord despite the resident reiterating their dissatisfaction on 1 April 2023 that it had not responded to her requests. The landlord took 2 weeks to respond to the resident’s concerns (14 April 2023) and only did so after the resident chased a response on 13 April 2023. This was not appropriate, and did not demonstrate a resident focused approach.
It is noted that by 14 June 2023 a senior member of staff had not contacted the resident and the landlord advised (within the stage 2 response) that a specialist from the insurers team would be best place to attend and offer expertise. This is something the landlord could have advised the resident at a much earlier point following her request for this. The landlord offered to see if a senior member of staff could attend however it failed to keep the resident informed in respect of whether it could accommodate this. This was not appropriate given its assurance that it would try to arrange this. If this had not been possible, it should have advised the resident of this, and been transparent in its communications. As a result of the lack of transparent communication, the resident had their hopes raised that this was something the landlord would be able to accommodate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was thorough and apologised for the lack of ownership of the case and delays in providing information to the resident. It advised that the property having been underpinned (it is not clear when this was done) had led to extended discussions between the landlord and the insurance team, resulting in a delay in completing the investigation. This is information which the landlord had not shared with the resident earlier in its handling of the matter. As such the landlord missed an opportunity to aid the resident’s understanding of the delay.
The landlord appropriately advised the resident not to withhold their rent and advised that this could lead to it taking further action in respect of the tenancy. It appropriately advised the resident that they should seek independent legal advice if they decided to pursue this. It is noted that the resident has commenced legal action, however this Service has not been provided with information in respect of this or the stage it is at.
The landlord identified some of its failures as follows:
1. A lack of ownership of the case.
2. Delays in providing specific information.
3. Inconvenience caused to the resident.
This Service, has however identified other failures of the landlord, which it failed to acknowledge, as follows:
1. A lack of consideration of the risk to the resident, including the lack of a risk assessment, in light of her vulnerabilities.
2. A failure to demonstrate that it had considered ways to reduce the initial risk at the property, or whether it carried out any ‘make safe’ repairs in line with its repairs policy.
3. A failure to responded to the resident’s concerns in respect of falling plaster in line with the HHSRS and a lack of consideration of any short term emergency repairs or steps to reduce the risk to the resident.
4. A failure to follow up on the finding of its contractor that it had been unsafe for them to adjust the doors due to the condition of the property.
5. A failure to address the resident’s concerns about the neighbouring properties being impacted by the subsidence.
6. A delay of over a month and a lack of transparent communication following the resident’s request for a senior member of staff to attend.
7. A failure to consider a temporary or permanent decant irrespective of the insurers findings.
8. A failure to address the resident’s concerns in respect of increased heating costs as a result of insecure windows and doors.
9. A failure to provide thorough and transparent information at stage 1 in respect of the insurers discussion about underpinning (it not advising of this until the stage 2 response).
10. A lack of proactive and regular updates to the resident.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is noted that the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had offered compensation to the resident but the resident had requested the works be done instead. It is not clear how much compensation was offered, however it was reasonable for the landlord to consider compensation as a form of redress. It is noted by this Service (as above) that the landlord however did not acknowledge all of its failures in its handling of the matter complained about. This therefore amounts to maladministration. This Service is not able to make an order for works to be carried out when this is an insurance matter and a legal matter (although details of this have not been provided). In the circumstances this Service considers compensation to be appropriate to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident. This Service had ordered compensation of £800, which includes consideration of the increased heating bills reported by the resident. This is line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the landlord has not acknowledged all their failures and the failures impacted the resident over a period of time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the length of time the landlord’s insurer took to process the subsidence insurance claim, assess the property and instruct the works to commence is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.

Reasons

The actions of the insurer falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The landlord identified some of its failures, however it failed to acknowledge that it had not demonstrated consideration of the risk posed to the resident, particularly in light of their physical vulnerability and its obligations under the HHSRS in respect of falling plaster and insecure door and windows. The landlord’s communication was not sufficiently proactive or transparent with the resident nor did it appropriately manage their expectations in respect of whether a senior member of it staff would attend as requested.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay £800 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the impact on them of the landlord’s failures.
3. Reviews its staff training needs with regards to handling repairs involving insurers in a proactive and transparent manner.