Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202223999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223999

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

23 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs required to the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Repairs required in the bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 6 October 2014. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives on her own. The resident has mobility issues and a diagnosis of COPD. The resident has a representative who made the complaint on her behalf. The resident and representative shall both be referred to as the resident for the purpose of this report.
On 7 October 2019, during a visit from the landlord, the resident raised that there was damp in her property. The landlord took photos and told the resident it believed the issue needed a repair, rather than it being condensation. The landlord said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend to inspect the property. The resident chased up the survey on 11 December 2019. It is unclear whether this survey went ahead.
On 9 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as her bedroom ceiling had fallen in. The landlord could not do a full fix, due to COVID 19 restrictions, but the landlord made the area safe.
On 12 May 2021, the resident enquired as to when the landlord would repair the ceiling. An internal note shows that the landlord knew the ceiling needed replacing; however, the landlord had not raised the job. On 12 November 2021, the inspector highlighted that prior to the landlord doing work, it needed an asbestos survey. The landlord did not undertake any repairs at this stage.
Between June and August 2022, the resident reported a leak from her toilet 6 times. The landlord attended each occasion and undertook a repair. A repair log from 30 August 2022 states that the toilet floor needed replacing as it was rotten and dangerous.
On 9 December 2022, the resident made a formal complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. The bedroom ceiling had collapsed in December 2019 due a leak from the upstairs flat. The landlord boarded the ceiling but took no further action.
2. The toilet floor was rotten, mouldy, and dangerous, therefore the floor needed replacing. The landlord had done “ineffective botched” repairs.
3. There had been damp and mould in the property since she had moved in, but the landlord had taken no action to resolve the matter.
4. The resident had taken leave, both paid and unpaid, for the repairs appointments and on occasion contractors had not turned up. The landlord had not kept the resident informed and its communication had been “appalling.” She felt the landlord had not taken accountability for the issues.
5. She felt the property needed extensive works which would require the resident to move out.
6. The resident was seeking an urgent move to a more suitable address. She confirmed she was on the housing waiting list.
On 18 December 2022, the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s bedroom ceiling. It agreed to renew and then redecorate the ceiling.
The landlord provided a formal response on 20 December 2022. It apologised that the repairs remained outstanding and for its lack of communication. In relation to the issues raised, the key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had raised works to renew the bedroom ceiling; However, its scheduling team would contact the resident to arrange a suitable date in the new year as the landlord had closed its diary.
2. The toilet floor was in a queue awaiting inspection. The landlord said it had a backlog of 800 inspections due to resourcing issues. The landlord said it had marked the issue as urgent. Again, it could not book an appointment until the new year.
3. The landlord would inspect the damp and mould at the same time as the toilet floor.
The resident said she found the landlord’s response unacceptable as the landlord had not dealt with the longstanding issues which were “detrimental” to her health and wellbeing. She said the landlord had made many visits and inspections, but it had taken no action and did not give a timeline of when it would complete the repairs.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it understood that the situation was frustrating and that its response had not provided the detail the resident was hoping for. It confirmed the inspection of the toilet, damp and mould would take place on 31 January 2023. It reiterated that it would be in contact to arrange the other works in due course.
An inspection log for 11 January 2023 showed that the landlord needed a further inspection of the bathroom floor, as the joists were starting to rot and there was damp and mould in the bathroom, sitting room and kitchen.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord completed the bedroom ceiling repair. On the same date, an inspection took place of the resident’s property. The inspector who attended was the same one who did an inspection of the same issue in 2019. That inspector told the resident he would speak to the landlord to find if it had done the damp survey he had asked for, if not he would raise one for the whole house.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. In January 2021, the resident reported an issue with the ceiling and the landlord completed make safe works. On 26 October 2021, the landlord inspected the ceiling. Works began to renew the ceiling on 31 January 2023. It confirmed a painter would attend on 8 February 2023.
2. Housing providers had a significant backlog due to COVID 19. It appreciated that the resident had waited a significant length of time. The landlord apologised for this.
3. It confirmed the issue with damp and mould was outstanding. It had arranged an inspection for 31 January 2023, but confirmed the contractor completed a mould wash on 12 January 2023.
4. Once the inspection had taken place the landlord would obtain pre-construction information to carry out any required works. The resident could expect an appointment within 4 weeks.
5. The landlord could not say if the resident would need a decant at that time.
6. It confirmed it could not help with a permanent move as the house was not unhabitable. It said she could make an application via the relevant rehousing website and bid on properties.
7. It offered compensation of £400; £200 for distress and inconvenience; £200 for time and trouble.
On 18 February 2023, the resident said she wished to move to the next stage of the complaints process. She said the works remained incomplete with no proposed completion dates and no idea of what the landlord was doing to address the underlying damp and mould issue. It said the landlord had not responded to the transfer request either.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord gave its stage 3 response. The landlord agreed there had been unacceptable delays caused by the repairs service. It said outstanding works were with its site manager to plan. It increased the compensation to £600.
On 15 March 2023, the inspector sent the survey to the landlord. The inspector said that he originally inspected the property in 2019 when he had requested a damp survey. He had then contacted the repairs team again in November 2021 following a visit to the property but had received no help in resolving the issues. He said the landlord would have resolved the complaint if it had taken ownership of the issue rather than avoiding it.
On 5 April 2023, the resident chased the landlord as she had not received any information on when the landlord would complete the work. She said she lived in unsatisfactory accommodation, had mobility issues and COPD and her living conditions were making it worse.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord said the works were with the site manager who would be in contact to arrange a suitable date.
In referring to this Service, the resident said the landlord had not carried out any promised works, the damp and mould issues remained, and the landlord had not helped with her request to move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord does not dispute that the resident had previously reported damp and mould in the property in October 2019 and that following that it completed a survey. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that this Service may not consider complaints that a resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her formal complaint in December 2022. Any mention of the issue outside of this period are for context only.

Policies and procedures

The Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles set out that there are 3 principles to effective resolution. These are as follows:
1. Be fair: Treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right: Address and resolve the issues.
3. Learn from outcomes: Use the resolution process as a learning opportunity.
The landlord’s Home Repairs Policy is as follows:
1. Emergency same day will be responded to within 6 hours.
2. Emergency will be responded to within 24 working hours.
3. Urgent will be responded to within 3 working days.
4. Routine will be responded to within 20 working days.
5. Planned and major will be responded to within 40 working days.
It says that repairs to plasterwork will be patch repairs only. Any repairs over 2m² will be pre-inspected prior to the completion of works.
The policy states that where an out of hours call out is urgent, it will complete “make safe” repairs. The landlord will schedule a return visit to finish the repair. The landlord will arrange this according to the urgency of the repair. The landlord will aim to complete the repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord, at the time of this complaint, had a 3 stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will deal with the complaint quickly and informally at stage 1 by providing information or taking action. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. At stage 3, the landlord will refer the complaint to the chief executive to review the handling and outcome of the complaint and provide a full response within 20 working days.

Bedroom ceiling

On 9 January 2021, the resident reported that her bedroom ceiling had fallen in. Due to operational restrictions during COVID 19, the landlord appropriately made the area safe and said it would attend later to complete a full repair.
The resident made further enquiries about the outstanding repair on 12 May 2021. Internal logs show that the landlord had marked the ceiling as needing replacing however it had not raised a repair. In normal circumstances, the landlord’s lack of action would have been inappropriate; However, the UK was at the time in a national lockdown due to COVID19. The government did not lift the final legal restrictions until July 2021. During that time, landlords could only run an essential repairs service. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had not scheduled a repair at that time.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not then schedule an inspection of the works needed until 14 October 2021. The Ombudsman understands that this was an unprecedented time, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated with the resident once restrictions had lifted to explain that it had a backlog and that it would be working through outstanding requests. Doing so would have managed the expectations of the resident and would be in line with the dispute resolution principles.
An inspection log from 12 November 2021 highlights that the landlord needed an asbestos survey before conducting a repair; however, it took until 18 July 2022 for the landlord to schedule the survey. This was 8 months after the inspection highlighted the need for such a survey. This delay was unacceptable and left the resident living with a temporary board on her bedroom ceiling. Furthermore, the resident was not aware of when the landlord would resolve the issue. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems in place to monitor repairs to ensure any further surveys are scheduled at the earliest opportunity.
Despite the landlord undertaking the asbestos survey in July 2022, it did not conduct a further inspection of the issue to confirm the full works needed until 18 December 2022. This is a further unacceptable delay for which the landlord did not provide an explanation for. It further highlights that the landlord did not have an effective system in place to track and monitor repairs. This delay shows a further disregard to the resident’s situation who had, by this point, lived with the temporary fix for almost 2 years.
In its first complaint response to the resident, the landlord said it could not provide a date for the repair at this stage as its diary was on hold till the new year. While the Ombudsman understands that landlords close for the new year, it is not appropriate that the landlord refused to schedule in the repair that the resident had been waiting for. It is unclear why the landlord would have been unable to schedule a repair until the new year had begun and this caused a further delay which would have frustrated the resident.
The landlord undertook the repair on 31 January 2023. While it was appropriate that it scheduled the repair early into the new year, it is not appropriate that the landlord took 2 years to complete the repair.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed for the resident’s bedroom ceiling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. Although the landlord initially made the area safe, it could not complete the full repairs due to COVID-19. However, following the lifting of restrictions, the landlord’s actions led to unacceptable delays. The landlord completed the inspection in October 2021, but then it then did not conduct the necessary surveys until 8 months later. Even after agreeing on the required works, it took the landlord a further month to complete them. Communication with the resident during this period was inadequate. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates, and the information provided was often lacking in detail, needing further follow-ups. While the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised, the compensation offered did not accurately reflect the identified failings in this case.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £600, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the delay in scheduling the first inspection.
2. £100 for the delay in scheduling the asbestos survey.
3. £100 for the delay in scheduling the works following the survey.
4. £300 for the overall time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Damp and mould.

The resident then raised the issue of damp and mould in the property in her formal complaint on 9 December 2022. The landlord appropriately responded swiftly to say it would complete an inspection. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord undertook a risk assessment of the damp and mould or that it considered temporary solutions while it was awaiting the inspection. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explored the seriousness of the issue with the resident. Not doing so showed a disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
The landlord responded on 20 December 2022 to say it would arrange to complete an inspection of the damp and mould. However, the evidence suggests the landlord did not raise this until 11 January 2023, a month after the resident had first reported the issue. This is not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. Given the known urgency of resolving damp and mould issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised an inspection request at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so caused a further delay in a resolution for the resident.
However, the landlord arranged for a mould wash for the affected areas on 12 January 2023. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to complete a mould wash in the interim, however, it is inappropriate that it took more than 6 weeks for it to attempt to diagnose the cause.
The inspection took place on 31 January 2023. It is unclear what the outcome of this inspection was, however, the resident’s communication with her representative suggests that the landlord needed a damp survey. The landlord needs to ensure it has robust and effective systems in place to record and monitor repairs to ensure a swift resolution for its residents.
The Ombudsman understands that often landlords need further surveys following inspections to find the correct repair solution. The surveyor attended on 16 February 2023. However, internal emails, on 10 March 2023, show the landlord was unclear if the surveyor had in fact attended the property. Landlords need to take a proactive approach to resolving damp and mould and therefore the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have effective systems in place to monitor when it has completed required surveys. Having such systems would enable the landlord to raise any required repairs, as necessary. Not doing so caused the resident a further delay, while she was left living with the damp and mould.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord confirmed it was happy for its contractor to undertake all required works and confirmed it would raise a new works order. This was 6 weeks following the inspection and over 4 months since the resident had reported the issue. This further highlights the landlord’s lack of effective systems to track and monitor repairs. The landlord’s lack of action in this case would have frustrated the resident.
The resident then chased the landlord for an update on 5 April 2023. The evidence suggests it was following this the landlord raised a repair job for the damp and mould. The landlord needs to ensure it acts in line with its policy and therefore raise repairs when a resident first reports one. In this instance it only did so after further prompting from the resident. The landlord missed several opportunities to ensure it had raised the required repairs and only doing so, 2 months after the survey and when prompted by the resident is unreasonable in the circumstances and not in line with the dispute resolution principles.
The resident chased the landlord again on 24 May 2023 asking when the contractor would attend to complete the works. The landlord responded on 26 May 2023 confirming the site manager had planned the works and the scheduler would contact the resident to agree repair dates. This was a further 6 weeks after the resident had previously chased the landlord. The landlord’s own repairs policy states that it would complete planned and major repairs within 40 working days. At this stage it was now 114 days since the resident had raised the issue, yet she was still unaware of a date for resolution. The landlord’s complete lack of regard to the situation the resident found herself in was inappropriate and its lack of effective planning caused a long unnecessary delay for the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould fell well short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It delayed in every aspect of resolving the issue from undertaking the first inspection, to scheduling the further survey to then actually raising a repair job for the works. Its communication was lacking, and it did not keep the resident updated. The resident had to spend time chasing a response from the landlord and it was often the resident’s communication that prompted the landlord to progress the repairs. The landlord did not risk assess the damp and mould and did not consider any temporary solutions for the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has not finalised the works in this matter, therefore an order has been made in relation to this.
Therefore, taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £500, made up of the following:
1. £250 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £250 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing a resolution.

Toilet Floor

Between June and August 2022, the resident suffered several leaks from her toilet. The landlord appropriately responded in line with its policy on each occasion to complete the necessary repairs.
However, it is clear from a repair log on 30 August 2022 that the leaks had caused significant damage and the toilet floor needed replacing. The repair log says that the floor was “rotted…dangerous and could collapse.” Given the serious repair needed to the resident’s bathroom floor, it is unacceptable that the landlord had not raised the works when the resident made her formal complaint in December 2022. This delay left the resident living with a potentially dangerous floor without knowing when the landlord would fix the issue. This was unacceptable and furthermore not in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
Landlords have a duty of care towards their residents, including ensuring their home is safe to live in. The fact that their repairs log highlights the floor could collapse, yet there is no evidence the landlord took immediate action to mitigate that risk, is inappropriate. More so, as this was the residents only bathroom and therefore, she had to use it. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to schedule immediate repair in line with its policy and where one could not be, it should have discussed temporary arrangements with the resident while it awaited a repair. Not doing so showed a disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
In its formal response to the resident on 20 December 2022, the landlord said it currently had a backlog of 800 cases due to resourcing issues with its inspectors. While that may have been the case, the landlord should have communicated that delay earlier to the resident to manage her expectations. This failing ultimately led to the resident raising a formal complaint.
In the complaint response to the resident the landlord said it could not provide a date for the repair at this stage as its diary was on hold till the new year. While the Ombudsman understands that landlords close for the new year, it is unclear why the landlord would not have been unable to schedule a repair until the new year had begun and this caused a further delay which would have frustrated the resident. This approach was not reasonable in the circumstances, especially given the length of time the issue had been going on for.
In line with its complaint response, the landlord scheduled an inspection of the bathroom floor for 31 January 2023. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the outcome of the inspection; however, by 18 February 2023, the resident had still not heard when the landlord would complete the works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept the resident up to date with its planned schedule of works. By this point it was 6 months since the landlord had identified the floor as needing replacing and therefore the repair was well outside of the landlord’s own repairs policy.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord confirmed that the works were with their site manager for planning and scheduling. However, evidence shows that the landlord repeated this statement to the resident over two months later, on 26 May 2023. During this period, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord for updates, even sending an email that included every staff member involved, including senior leaders of the local authority. It was only after this email that the landlord responded, but the response lacked detail. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to follow up on the repair and manage the resident’s expectations about the repair timeline. The lack of communication, especially given the extensive delay, was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has not yet finished the work in this matter, therefore an order has been made in relation to this.
The resident first reported leaks from her toilet in July 2022. The landlord appropriately attended each time the leak reoccurred to repair the issue. However, after detecting that the floor needed replacing, the landlord’s actions were delayed and not in line with its own repairs policy. Although the landlord eventually undertook an inspection, it did not occur until six months after it found the repair. During this time, the landlord left the resident living with a bathroom that, in the landlord’s own words, was “rotten” and could “collapse.” These extensive delays showed a lack of regard for the resident’s safety, and the landlord’s responses lacked empathy. The landlord clearly had no system in place to track repairs and ensure that it raised necessary works promptly. Furthermore, its communication fell short of the expected standard. Had the landlord communicated the delays to the resident to manage her expectations, it might have been a mitigating factor in this case. However, its handling of the repairs required for the bathroom floor was inadequate.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the bathroom floor.
A compensation order has been made for £700, made up of the following:
1. £200 for the delay in raising an inspection.
2. £200 for the delay in scheduling the repairs.
3. £100 for not considering the safety of the resident.
4. £200 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaints Handling.

At the time of this complaint the landlord used a 3-stage complaint process which included an informal stage 1. However, the landlord has carried out a self-assessment against the latest version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) which came into force on 1 April 2024 and notes its complaint handling policy is now in line with the latest Code. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made an order for the landlord to review its complaints policy and ensure that it is Code compliance.
In the resident’s formal complaint on 9 December 2022, she said was seeking an urgent move to a more suitable address. She informed the landlord she was on a waiting list already. In the landlord’s first response, it did not address this aspect of her complaint. The Code sets out that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. By not addressing this issue, the landlord not only denied the resident the opportunity to pursue the issue through the full complaint’s procedure, but it caused her to spend further time chasing a response.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 January 2023 to explain that she still was not happy with the landlord’s response. However, the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to the next stage. While the resident did not specifically ask for this to happen, her response clearly showed that she did not feel that the landlord had resolved the complaint. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken the complaint to its stage 2 at that time.
As she remained dissatisfied, the resident contacted this service on 18 January 2023, following which we asked the landlord to provide a full response by 2 February 2023. Appropriately, the landlord did this.
In the landlord’s response, it addressed the issues raised. However, in relation to the request to move house, the landlord just said it was unable to “assist” and the resident would need to make an application. This response was unhelpful, especially as the resident had said she was already on the waiting list. The code sets out that the landlord should set out the clear reasons for any decisions referencing any relevant policy. The landlord’s response was not in line with this principle and was unhelpful. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the resident to its housing team at the very least, especially given that the resident had already said she was on the housing waiting list.
The resident requested escalation to stage 3 on 18 February 2023 and the landlord provided its response, in line with its policy, on 9 March 2023.
However, despite mentioning the request for help with a housing move in her escalation request, the landlord again did not address this issue in its response. As above, a landlord’s complaint responses should address all issues raised, yet the landlord did not do so. Its lack of response showed a disregard to the resident’s concerns and was not in line with the Code or the dispute resolution principles.
Following the stage 3 response, internal emails show that the landlord was unsure of the next steps the resident should take. Its policy clearly sets out the next step would be to refer to this Service, however, its staff were unaware of the correct process to follow. Not providing information about the resident’s available next steps could have delayed her receiving support from this Service.
The landlord’s complaint responses lack any real detail. This caused the resident to spend time chasing answers from the landlord. It did not properly address all the issues raised by the resident on more than one occasion. Furthermore, it did not escalate the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity, only doing so when prompted by this Service. It then did not appropriately signpost to this Service in its complaint response.
Therefore, taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £250, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not addressing all the issues raised at stage 1.
2. £50 for not escalating to stage 2 at the earliest opportunity.
3. £50 for not giving adequate information at stage 2.
4. £50 for not addressing all the issues at stage 3.
5. £50 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursing her complaint.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs, record-keeping, and complaint handling. As a result of these, a wider order was issued to the landlord on 21 June 2024 as part of case 202201953, under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures found. Some of the issues found in this case have similarities to those in the previous case and therefore learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the bedroom ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the bathroom floor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £2,050, made up of the following:
1. £600 for its handling of the repairs required to the bedroom ceiling.
2. £500 for its handling of the damp and mould.
3. £700 for its handling of the repairs required to the bathroom floor.
4. £250 for its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman understands the outstanding works needed at the property are currently underway. Within 2 weeks of the date of the works being finished, the landlord must liaise with the resident and provide an action plan setting out the decoration works it intends to take to restore the resident’s property to its previous condition, prior to the issues occurring.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff at the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

This report focused on the complaint made in 2022 and it investigated the landlord’s actions surrounding that complaint until mid-2023. As the works have not yet been completed, the landlord should consider whether any further compensation from mid-2023 to the date of completion of the works is necessary.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlords practise was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence is has self-assessed already.