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

Haringey London Borough Council (202223203)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223203

Haringey London Borough Council

16 November 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level and reasonableness of the landlord’s service charges for major works for a fire door and alarms at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding works to replace the resident’s flat entrance door.
    3. The landlord’s communications and complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The level and reasonableness of the landlord’s service charges for major works for a fire door and alarms at the resident’s property.
  3. Under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
  4. The resident has complained to the Ombudsman about the level and reasonableness of the landlord’s service charges for major works for a fire door and alarms at her property. She has explained that she disputes the level and reasonableness of its charges for both previous works to install a fire door there, which she reports did not take place, and proposed future fire door and alarm works at the property. The resident has therefore requested a refund of the previous fire door charges, and the removal of the proposed future internal fire alarm charges that she disputes, in order to resolve her complaint.
  5. However, the resident’s complaint about the level and reasonableness of the landlord’s service charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and so will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because we may not consider complaints concerning the level of service charges, or the amount of service charge increases, under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, and she has disputed the level of service charges for major works for a fire door and alarms at her property. This also means that the Ombudsman may not consider the resident’s dispute with the landlord about the reasonableness of the service charges, as this too is about the level or the amount of increase of the charges.
  6. The landlord’s handling of outstanding works to replace the resident’s flat entrance door, and its communications and complaint handling in her case, are nevertheless within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and so are considered below.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a ground floor flat in converted terrace house.
  2. From January to June 2022, the resident reported issues about major works to the landlord, some of which she had raised before. These included that it had incorrectly invoiced her for service charges for previous works to fit a fire door at her property, which had not taken place. The resident also disputed the level and reasonableness of the charges for its proposed flat entrance door and related linking and internal fire alarm works. However, she asked it to proceed with the door and linking fire alarm works.
  3. The landlord informed the resident in February 2022 that it had not yet responded to her reports because a new project manager was taking this over. It then told her in the same month that it aimed to arrange a survey date for the property for the proposed works before 4 March 2022. The landlord also informed the resident that the manufacturing time for the flat entrance door could take up to 8 weeks. It additionally apologised that she had not received a response about the above invoice, which it had sent to its leaseholder services team to respond to.
  4. The resident and the landlord continued to communicate about the proposed works in March 2022. Its leaseholder services team also directed her in the same month to contact her solicitors for further information about the invoice for previous works before she had purchased the property in 2019, which she disputed had taken place. The landlord’s project manager then inspected the resident’s current flat entrance door in May 2022, as part of its investigation into the door’s installation. They found that this was not a fire door that complied with its requirements and so needed to be replaced. The resident’s case was also subsequently escalated to the landlord’s leaseholder services team in May 2022. This was because she had not received the further information that she had requested from it about the door’s installation. It confirmed that this had been fitted by the previous leaseholder, and so she disputed it charging her for this.
  5. After chasing the landlord on 27 May 2022 for information that she had previously requested from it about making a formal complaint, on 10 June 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to it. She stated that there was a lack of communication from it about its previous and proposed major works at her property and their cost. The resident also complained about the lack of answers to her queries about what works would actually occur and when, including the linking and internal fire alarms, and of responses to her disputing the reasonableness of the cost. She confirmed that she wanted the landlord to refund the previous service charges and remove the future charges for the major works that she disputed. The resident additionally repeated her request for it to proceed with the flat entrance door and linking fire alarm works that she agreed with.
  6. The landlord’s subsequent stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2022 was from its leaseholder services team. Although she queried the appropriateness of them responding to her, as she had already been dealing with them. It apologised for her dissatisfaction with its service. The landlord also confirmed that the service charges for the previous major works included a fire door that had been replaced by the resident’s property’s former leaseholder. This had been done without planning permission or its consent and was not up to the required standard and had to be replaced. The landlord therefore declined to refund the resident’s previous service charges for this. This was because it considered that this would mean that it supported that the door was up to standard when it did not. The landlord instead considered that the door may pose significant risks to the building. It also asked for the resident’s bank details to process compensation for her in relation to its complaint procedures.
  7. On 24 June 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure without giving any more reasons for doing so. It subsequently responded to the stage 2 complaint on 26 July 2022. The landlord stated that, when the resident had previously purchased her property, she had agreed to pay an outstanding invoice for replacement door works. It added that it was unaware of the unsuitability of the door at the time. Therefore, although the landlord acknowledged that the resident did not want to be charged for the unsuitable door that she had nothing to do with, it was unable to refund her for this. This was because the door did not meet the required standards. However, the landlord offered the resident the compromise of considering not charging her for the cost of the new door when the works to replace this were completed.
  8. The landlord also stated that its leasehold services team had responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint because they were best placed to provide all of the necessary information. It said this was normal practice at stage 1 unless the complaint related to its staff’s behaviour. The landlord additionally apologised for a paragraph relating to compensation being included in its stage 1 response, which it said had been done in error. The resident nevertheless continued to request an update and timeframe on her flat entrance door replacement, which she again asked it to proceed with. This was while she separately disputed the level and reasonableness of the service charges. The resident then asked the landlord to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 July 2022, when she repeated her stage 1 complaint to it. It forwarded this to its designated tenant complaints appeal panel to respond to at stage 3 of its complaints procedure.
  9. The landlord’s subsequent stage 3 complaint response on 6 September 2022 confirmed that its tenant complaints appeal panel had met to review the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2022. It explained that the panel had found that it had offered a fair compromise to cover the cost of her new flat entrance door. The landlord added that the project to replace the door was currently at a procurement stage. The resident would therefore be notified when a start date was known. However, it agreed that the linking fire alarm works were critical for safety purposes and should not be delayed or hindered. The landlord was also satisfied that multiple internal heat, carbon, and smoke alarms were necessary to keep residents safe, and it did not find fault with how it had dealt with the complaint. It nevertheless recommended using plain English in future resident communications, especially when explaining rules and regulations, such as legal fire safety requirements.
  10. However, the resident disputed the landlord’s stage 3 response. This was including because her upstairs neighbours had already had a new flat entrance door fitted. The resident therefore queried how this could be at the procurement stage for her property. She subsequently complained to the Ombudsman about issues including the landlord’s handling of the outstanding replacement door works. The resident explained that she wanted it to resolve her complaint by proceeding with replacing the door, and completing the related linking fire alarm works that she agreed with. However, these were currently still on hold, despite the landlord telling her that this work was urgent. It then informed the Ombudsman that the works were awaiting a section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 consultation due to their cost. The landlord therefore expected the works to start by around March 2024 at the earliest, but it said that the resident could contact it for urgent door repairs in the meantime.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although it is noted that the resident began raising issues with the landlord’s handling of major works at her property prior to 2022, events occurring before that date are not considered in this investigation. This is because, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s case from January 2022 because this is within 6 months of her stage 1 complaint to it in June 2022.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding works to replace the resident’s flat entrance door

  1. The resident’s lease obliges the landlord to maintain, repair and renew her building’s structure and entrances, which it is permitted to pay for by charging her proportionate service charges. Its website confirms that it is also responsible for maintaining her property’s front and rear entrance doors. However, the landlord may complete large one-off major jobs, such as replacing doors, via longer-term major works instead of day-to-day repairs. The landlord is committed to consulting with residents at all stages of a major works project via its project management and leasehold services teams on site, at meetings, and in newsletters. It also has a legal duty to consult leaseholders whenever it proposes to carry out work costing them over £250 each under section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents states that planned works will be inspected within 28 days, and that residents will then be told when the job will be carried out.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord from at least 21 January 2022 regarding details of its proposed replacement of her flat entrance door and related fire alarm works. However, it only responded to her by telling her on 28 January and 18 February 2022, respectively, that it was investigating this and then that its new project manager would be taking over and would contact her. The new project manager then informed the resident on 23 February 2022 that the strict requirements for fire doors to be fully compliant meant that her door replacement had taken longer than anticipated. However, the door surveys had begun and orders placed with manufacturers. The resident would therefore be contacted to arrange a survey before 4 March 2022, it could then take up to 8 weeks to manufacture a door, and the contractor would contact her to arrange to install it.
  3. The resident subsequently asked the landlord on 24 February 2022 to proceed with the flat entrance door and linking fire alarm works at the property, and she asked when these would be installed. Although it only replied on the same date to say that new internal fire alarms also needed to be installed, and not when these would be fitted. The landlord then responded to the resident’s further fire alarm queries on 1 and 2 March 2022 by providing her with more information and offering to visit her with its contractor to discuss these. Although she continued to ask it and its contractor to proceed with the works that she agreed with on 8 and 29 March 2022, respectively. On 11 May 2022, the landlord confirmed that, after its project manager’s inspection of the resident’s current flat entrance door, this was not considered to be fire compliant and needed to be replaced.
  4. The resident subsequently asked the landlord on 31 May 2022 when her flat entrance door would be replaced, and she continued to request that it proceed with this and linking fire alarm works on 10 June and 27 July 2022. It told her on the latter date that the door would be replaced in a follow-on project that year, if possible. However, this had been left out of the previous project to do so because of the delay in getting the resident’s door colour choice and addressing her concerns about her current door. She replied on the same date to express her concerns that the door replacement had been put on hold indefinitely, and that she had not chosen a colour for the door. The landlord then repeated on 2 August 2022 that the door and alarm works would be part of its follow-on project.
  5. The landlord went on to confirm on 6 September 2022 that the resident’s flat entrance door replacement was currently at a procurement stage, and that she would be notified when a start date was known. However, the linking alarm works were critical for safety purposes and should not be delayed or hindered. The landlord therefore completed its earlier fire safety improvement works project in September 2022, which installed the alarms at the resident’s property. It then sent her notice of its costs for that project on 26 September 2022. However, the resident subsequently informed the landlord on 26 April 2023 that the door had still not been installed, and that the alarms had errors that had not been corrected. It nevertheless only referred her to its project management team for her query about whether the new alarms had been linked, and it did not give her a timescale for replacing the door.
  6. The landlord later informed the Ombudsman that it expected to send leaseholders its section 20 consultation notice for its follow-on project by late October 2023. This included replacing the resident’s flat entrance door and installing a heat detector behind this, which she had previously declined. The subsequent consultation process, procurement of a contractor, and 8 to 12-week manufacture of the new door meant that the landlord expected these works to begin by around March 2024 at the earliest. However, the landlord would write to the resident when a contractor was selected, to arrange a survey to measure the door, and to arrange to install this. It also explained that she could contact it for a surveyor to inspect and coordinate any urgent door repairs that were necessary in the meantime, and that it regretted the delay and any inconvenience caused to her.
  7. The resident chased the landlord for the replacement flat entrance door and related linking fire alarm works that it had proposed at her property from at least 21 January 2022. However, it did not install the alarms until September 2022, and stated that it would only begin replacing the door by March 2024 at the earliest. This was an unreasonably excessive delay by the landlord, which would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was obliged by her lease and its website to replace the door and fire alarms, which were to be paid for via her proportionate service charges. The landlord also raised the legitimate expectation on the resident’s part that it would do so in a timely manner in the first half of 2022 by telling her on 23 February 2022 that a survey would be arranged for this before 4 March 2022. A new door would then be manufactured in up to 8 weeks, before the contractor would arrange to install this.
  8. The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents required it to inspect the resident’s property for planned works, such as her new flat entrance door and linking fire alarms, within 28 days. The timescale that it gave her for it to do so was therefore not much more than this from when she contacted it on 21 January 2022, as it offered to arrange a survey for this before 4 March 2022. However, there is no evidence that the survey then took place, which was inappropriate. The landlord also later told the Ombudsman that a survey was still needed to measure for the resident’s new door for its revised timescale to begin installing this by March 2024 at the earliest. This further indicated that the survey had not taken place.
  9. Moreover, the landlord informed the resident on 27 July 2022 that the door would be replaced that year, if possible, but it did not do so. This was despite her taking the time and trouble to chase it for updates on the door and fire alarm works on 24 February, 8 and 29 March, 31 May, 10 June and 27 July 2022, and on 26 April 2023. The resident also told the landlord on the latter date that the alarms had errors that had not been resolved, which was unreasonable, and she queried whether these had been linked. It is additionally very concerning for safety reasons that it took at least 8 months to carry out the fire alarm works at the resident’s property, and that it will take at least 26 months to replace her flat entrance door. This is because these works were due as part of the landlord’s fire safety improvement works project in 2022.
  10. This is particularly due to the findings of the landlord’s project manager’s inspection of the resident’s current flat entrance door, and its subsequent stage 1 complaint response about this. These confirmed on 11 May and 23 June 2022, respectively, that they had found that the door was not fire compliant and needed to be replaced. This had been installed by the resident’s property’s former leaseholder without planning permission or the landlord’s consent and might pose significant risks to her building. Therefore, its excessive delays in replacing the door at her property, and in installing and correcting fire alarms there, could have put her fire safety at risk. This was also suggested by its stage 3 complaint response on 6 September 2022 because this confirmed that that the linking alarm works were critical for safety purposes and should not be delayed or hindered.
  11. The landlord nevertheless confirmed to the Ombudsman that the major works to replace the resident’s flat entrance door and install related linking fire alarms would cost its leaseholders over £250 each. This meant that it was not entirely responsible for all of the delays in her case. This is because the cost of the works gave it a legal duty under section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to consult leaseholders about this before procuring a contractor. It would then take 8 to 12 weeks to manufacture a new door prior to installing this. It is therefore understandable that it would have taken the landlord at least several months to do so after the resident contacted it about this in January 2022. This is also because she continued to dispute the level and reasonableness of its service charges for the door and internal fire alarm works. Although it is noted that the resident continued to ask for the door and linking fire alarm works to proceed.
  12. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord provided contradictory information about the resident’s flat entrance door and related linking fire alarm works. This is because, after it suggested to her in February 2022 that this might occur in the first half of that year, it subsequently told her in July 2022 that it would complete the works that year if possible. The landlord then told the resident in September 2022 that these were at the procurement stage, and it later told the Ombudsman that the works would begin around March 2024 at the earliest. It is also inappropriate that she had to continue to chase it for updates on the progress and timescale of the works throughout that time. There is additionally no evidence that it provided her with the latest timescale that it gave us.
  13. The landlord additionally provided contradictory information about the reasons for its delays in the resident’s case on 27 July 2022. It told her that her flat entrance door had been left out of its 2022 fire safety improvement works project because of the delay in getting her door colour choice, and in addressing her concerns about her current door. However, the landlord previously informed the resident that it would arrange a survey for the door before 4 March 2022 before manufacturing a replacement within 8 weeks. The findings of its project manager’s inspection of this were also provided on 11 May 2022, and there is no evidence of her giving it her door colour choice or of it seeking this from her. The resident also disputed that she had provided the landlord with a colour choice, and she reported that her upstairs neighbours’ door had been replaced. Its delays in her case were therefore not appropriately explained.
  14. It is additionally of concern that, while the landlord did arrange for fire alarm works at the resident’s property, it offered her no other remedies for its failures in her case. It excessively delayed these and her flat entrance door works, did not suitably explain its delays, and failed to regularly update her without being chased. This is also because the landlord’s compromise offer to cover the cost of the resident’s new door was only to resolve the dispute with her over the level and reasonableness of its service charges for this and her current door. It therefore did not put its above failings right, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles for it to do so. As a result, the landlord has been ordered below to send leaseholders its section 20 consultation notice for its follow-on project to carry out the outstanding flat entrance door and heat detector works at the resident’s property, if it has not done so already. It has also been ordered below to provide her with an up-to-date timescale for it to begin these works, and to give her regular updates on their progress until the works are completed.
  15. Furthermore, the landlord failed to consider exercising the discretion available to it under its discretionary compensation policy to put things right for the resident by making a payment to her. This was unsuitable because the policy permitted it to do so, as she had been adversely affected by its delays in taking action in her case, and she had experienced loss and suffering as a result of its failures. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered compensating the resident for this. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her £600 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This recommends awards of up to this amount for failures that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord did not acknowledge and made no attempt to put right.
  16. It is also concerning that there is no evidence that the landlord followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to learn from the outcome of the resident’s flat entrance door case. As a result, it has been ordered below to carry out a case review to determine exactly why the failings identified by this investigation occurred. This is as well as outlining exactly how the landlord proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future, apologising to the resident for its failures and providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs as a result of the resident’s flat entrance door case. This is regarding giving residents timely inspections and works, regular proactive progress updates, and full and accurate explanations and revised timescales for any delays for its major works projects. This is so that this is done in every case.

The landlord’s communications and complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy requires it to try and resolve all issues, and to ensure that members of staff who are the subject of complaints are not responsible for investigating or responding to those complaints. It is obliged to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, and to stage 3 complaints within 20 working days following a residents’ panel.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 10 June 2022 within its customer feedback policy’s 10-working-day timescale on 23 June 2022. It then responded to her stage 2 complaint of 24 June 2022 on 26 July 2022, which was 2 working days later than the policy’s 20-working-day timescale for it to do so. The landlord subsequently treated the resident’s correspondence of 27 July 2022 as a stage 3 complaint, arranged a tenant complaints appeal panel for this on 24 August 2022, and responded to the complaint on 6 September 2022. This was within its policy’s 20-working-day timescale for it to do so following the panel.
  3. However, it is of concern that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response only addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with its fire door service charges for her property. This is because it did not respond to her stage 1 complaint’s dissatisfaction with its lack of major works communication, and request for it proceed with flat entrance door and linking fire alarm works at her property. This was contrary to the landlord’s customer feedback policy’s requirement for it to try and resolve all of the resident’s issues. This was also contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s (the Code) requirement for it to address all of the matters that she raised. It is also concerning that it incorrectly requested her bank details to process complaint procedure compensation that it did not award in her case.
  4. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised to the resident for wrongly including a paragraph relating to compensation in its stage 1 response. It additionally gave her a suitable explanation for why its leasehold services team had issued the stage 1 response, which she had previously queried as she had already been dealing with them. This is because the landlord explained that, in line with its customer feedback policy, this was normal practice at stage 1 unless the complaint related to its staff’s behaviour. The policy instead required it to ensure that such staff not investigate or respond to the complaint. The landlord also explained that its leasehold services team was best placed to provide all of the necessary information, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response nevertheless again failed to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with its lack of major works communication and request for it to proceed with flat entrance door and linking fire alarm works. This was another inappropriate failure by it to try and resolve and address all of her issues, as required by its customer feedback policy and the Code. The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response did subsequently respond to the resident about its communications and the works, although it only did so briefly. It was suitable, however, that it recommended it use plain English in future resident communications about rules and regulations.
  6. It is nevertheless concerning that the landlord immediately responded to the resident’s correspondence of 27 July 2022 requesting a referral to the Ombudsman as a stage 3 complaint to its tenant complaints appeal panel. This is because it did not first confirm with her whether she wanted to be referred to us via this or a different method. Overall, the landlord was therefore responsible for poor complaint handling in the resident’s case. This was due to it failing to address all of the issues in her stage 1 complaint until briefly at stage 3, providing her with incorrect information in its stage 1 response, and not first confirming that she wanted to make a stage 3 complaint to it before accepting this. This meant that the resident would have experienced unnecessary additional time and trouble in trying to resolve her complaint by repeatedly having to escalate this with the landlord.
  7. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, but it again failed to consider exercising the discretion available to it in its discretionary compensation policy to recognise its poor complaint handling. This was unreasonable given the number of failings that she experienced from it, and so it has been ordered below to pay her £100 compensation in recognition of these. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends awards of up to this amount for such time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.
  8. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its customer feedback policy and the Code. This is to ensure that it tries and resolves and addresses all of the issues raised in every complaint, and that it first confirms how the resident would like the complaint to be handled before proceeding with this.
  9. The landlord’s recommendation for it to use plain English in future resident communications about rules and regulations was a reasonable way of improving the clarity and understanding of its communication. However, this did not address all of the issues with its communications. As outlined above, the resident chased the landlord for updates on her case on at least 24 February, 8 and 29 March, 31 May, 10 June and 27 July 2022, and on 26 April 2023. In response, it nevertheless only twice gave her timescales for this in February and July 2022, and it failed to give her regular proactive updates on its progress, or full and appropriate explanations for its delays. The landlord instead gave the resident contradictory information about the reasons for the delays, which it failed to provide any supporting evidence for.
  10. The frequency, accuracy, and reactiveness of the landlord’s communications in the resident’s case were therefore inappropriate, and so it has been ordered below to pay her a further £100 compensation in recognition of this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s above recommendation because its poor communications in her case would have also caused her unnecessary additional time and trouble by repeatedly having to contact it for updates.
  11. As a result, the below order for the landlord to carry out a case review of its failings in the resident’s case, apologise to her for these, and provide her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review was additionally made to improve its communication with residents. Moreover, the below recommendation for it to review its staff’s training needs regarding providing residents with updates, explanations and revised timescales for its major works projects was made to improve its communication too.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in:
    1. Its handling of outstanding works to replace the resident’s flat entrance door.
    2. Its communications and complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Send leaseholders within 4 weeks its section 20 consultation notice for its follow-on project to carry out the outstanding flat entrance door and heat detector works at the resident’s property, if it has not done so already.
    2. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide her with an up-to-date timescale for it to begin the outstanding flat entrance door and heat detector works at her property, and to then give her regular updates on their progress until the works are completed.
    3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £800 within 4 weeks. This is broken down into:
      1. £600 in recognition of its failures in handling the outstanding works to replace her flat entrance door.
      2. £100 for its poor communications in her case.
      3. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
    4. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks to determine exactly why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future, apologising to the resident for its failures and providing her and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding giving residents timely inspections and works, regular proactive progress updates, and full and accurate explanations and revised timescales for any delays for its major works projects, to ensure that it does so in every case.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their implementation of its customer feedback policy and the Code, to ensure that it tries and resolves and addresses all of the issues raised in every complaint, and that it first confirms how the resident would like the complaint to be handled before proceeding with this.
  3. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.