Haringey London Borough Council (202226236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226236

Haringey London Borough Council

31 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. report that his home was flooded.
2. request for compensation for damage to his personal belongings.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the above issues.
2. record keeping.
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. He lived in a ground-floor flat from May 2010 until December 2023. The landlord’s records show that the resident had mental health diagnoses.
In 2018 the landlord placed a restriction on how the resident could communicate with it. It said that the resident was only allowed to communicate with it via letter and was prohibited from emailing or communicating directly with named officers.
On 8 January 2023 the resident called the landlord’s out-of-hours service from his neighbour’s phone (Neighbour B) to report that his flat had been flooded. The landlord attended on the same day and left a calling card as it was unable to gain access.
On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about the flood. This Service has seen a photograph of the resident’s kitchen that appears to have had significant water ingress. This photograph was taken by the resident who had sent it to the landlord on this day. The resident also explained that he:
1. had post-traumatic stress disorder.
2. returned home for a gas safety check and found that his home was flooded and had mould spores. He had reported the issue to the landlord from Neighbour B’s phone as he did not have one. The landlord told him that it would take up to 4 hours to attend. As he had nowhere else to go, he gave his keys to Neighbour B and returned to his relative’s home which was outside of London.
3. asked the landlord to contact Neighbour B to collect the keys and repair his flat.
4. wanted compensation for the damage to his personal belongings caused by the flood.
On 10 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and provided it with further information. He said:
1. the flood may have been caused by burst pipes. He said this may have happened around 6 weeks prior when the temperature had dropped to freezing.
2. the flat was uninhabitable and he had photos and video evidence that he could provide the landlord.
3. he felt suicidal and stressed as he did not have “a friend to count on.”
4. he had called the gas contractor and it confirmed that it had carried out a gas check on 9 January 2023 and it had returned the keys to neighbour B.
On 12 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to arrange a tenancy audit and welfare check. It said that it would visit on 17 January 2023. It asked the resident to confirm whether he was available that day. It is unclear whether the resident responded.
On 16 January 2023 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. She said:
1. the resident had reported that his property was flooded and that the landlord had not carried out repairs to his home.
2. the resident had left the keys to his flat with Neighbour B so repairs could be carried out in his absence as he was residing outside of London.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord responded to the MP’s enquiry. It said:
1. it had attended on 8 January 2023 and there it was unable to gain access. It had arranged to attend again on 27 January 2023.
2. the resident could make a claim via its insurers for the damage to his property and provided relevant details.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s flat. It noted that there was no access.
On 30 January 2023 the Service contacted the landlord. We said that resident had made a complaint about:
1. damp and mould issues.
2. water leaks that had damaged the property and his belongings.
3. delays in handling his reports.
4. poor staff conduct and level of customer service provided.
On 7 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He said that it had failed to help him with his flooded home, he had not heard back from its insurers and no one was helping him.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s flat. It noted that there was no access to his nor Neighbour B’s flat. On 17 February 2023 in internal correspondence, the landlord stated that the resident had raised his concerns that he had not heard back from its insurers. It asked that his claim was followed up.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and told him that due to the communication restrictions that it had in place, he could only respond to it by letter.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. it had considered the resident’s complaint, referred by this Service, at stage 2 of its complaint process. It stated that this was because the resident’s MP had made similar enquiries and its process allowed escalation of member enquiries to its stage 2 complaint stage.
2. the resident had not been living at the property. It had invited the resident to discuss his housing and support needs but he declined to meet.
3. as he reported that he had not been living at the property recently it could not take accountability for the damage he discovered when he returned.
4. the resident’s claim to its insurance team had been rejected.
5. it had visited on two occasions but no access had been granted. Therefore, it was unable to carry out any remedial works.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the decision not to reimburse him for damage to his personal belongings. The resident therefore referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.
The landlord informed this Service that it gained repossession of the resident’s flat in December 2023.

Legislation

Landlords must ensure that its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For a home to be considered ‘decent’, it must be free of ‘serious’ hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm and include the presence of damp and mould growth, risks presenting from pest entry and sanitation and drainage issues.
It is further implied into the tenancy by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 that a landlord must ensure its dwelling is fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the HHSRS is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
The landlord is required to have regard to a complainant’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account a known disability.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs resident handbook stated:
1. It was responsible for water and gas pipes, electrical wiring, heating, drainage, power and light fittings inside and outside its residents’ flat.
2. It would not enter its residents’ home unless there was an adult present – either the resident or someone who was at least 18 years old.
3. the out-of-hours service included jobs that were urgent and could not wait until the next working day. Examples of this type of work included burst pipes or major water leaks.
4. emergency repairs included repairs that placed a person or property at risk during the day, such as burst pipes or a major water leak. It would attend within 24 hours of receiving such report
5. its agreed appointments, included “nearly everything else”. It would offer an appointment to suit the resident within 28 days of the reported repair.
Its managing unreasonable behaviour policy stated:
1. residents would retain the right to reasonable access to its services and to exercise legal rights.
2. it would consider any special needs.
3. it may on occasion need to ensure that a line of communication is available as appropriate, such as contact with a link or care worker or access to translation services.
4. when imposing a restriction, it would specify a review date will which would be carried out by end of the period. It would inform the resident of the outcome of the review.
The tenancy agreement stated:
1. residents must allow the landlord access to their homes to facilitate inspection or work to their property.
2. If the resident had at least 24 hours’ written notice that the landlord required access but failed to let the landlord in, it may force entry. It would only force entry if it believed that there was a risk of injury or damage to the property or areas around the property or imminent danger.
Its complaint policy stated:
1. where a “member of the public” has raised their concerns about a service through a MP rather than through the complaints process, this is dealt with as a member enquiry rather than a complaint.
2. it operated a 2-stage complaint process. It would respond to complaints stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
3. complaints about members of staff were dealt with as a 1-stage internal process.
4. responses would be clear and evidence based.
Its compensation policy stated that all liability claims must be made to its insurance team.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that his home was flooded and subsequent damp and mould

In response to the resident’s report on 8 January 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged to attend the property on the same day. However, there was no access when it arrived.
It is noted that the resident was concerned that the damp and mould was affecting his health. As a result, he made the decision not to stay at the property and returned to his relative’s home. He gave his keys to Neighbour B so the landlord could gain access to the property instead. This was reasonable. However, the evidence available does not suggest that the landlord was made aware of this arrangement until the next day and therefore did not make an attempt to ask Neighbour B for the keys on 8 January.
It is noted that the resident also did not have a phone at that time, so the landlord was unable to contact him. As such, based on the evidence that is available, we are satisfied that the landlord had taken steps to respond to the resident’s report in line with its policy obligations. However, it was unable to do so in the circumstances.
On 9 and 10 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord outlining what he considered the cause of the flood to be which was a burst pipe, he also said that he felt “suicidal and did not have a friend to count on”. In its response, the landlord arranged an appointment to visit the resident on or around 17 January 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to visit the resident, it is unclear why this was unable to take place sooner. Furthermore, the outcome of the visit is unclear. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident had declined to meet with it to discuss his support needs. The resident was entitled to do so. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of this, and what alternative action the landlord considered to support the resident at this time.Given the circumstances, and if the resident was reluctant to meet, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted him to supporting agencies and considered a safeguarding referral. That the landlord did not take any further action was a significant failing given how the resident had reported feeling. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
It is noted that the resident’s emails to the landlord contained profanity and abuse which presented a challenge for the landlord to manage. Also, that it had restricted his communication with it to letter only. Therefore, signposting the resident to supporting agencies may have provided the resident with support that he needed to effectively communicate with it. It may have also provided the landlord with a pathway to effectively respond to the resident and resolve his reported repairs in a timely manner. This would have demonstrated not only that it was committed to resolving the repairs but also that its actions were in line with its managing unreasonable behaviour policy which states that residents would retain the right to reasonable access to its services and to exercise legal rights. That it did not was a failing.
In our ‘Attitudes, respect and rights’ spotlight report, we said that “Landlords must recognise that the failure to deliver a routine service can act as the catalyst for a prolonged period of service failure which, because of the presence of vulnerabilities, can become more complex to resolve and result in more detriment to the resident.”
While the resident has not complained specifically about the application of the contact restriction by the landlord, we have taken this into consideration when considering the complaint given the issues around communication. It is noted that the restriction was first applied in 2018, but it is unclear from the evidence whether this was reviewed at any time. Based on the evidence, we consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed its communication restrictions that it had been in place to ensure that it was able to meet its repair obligations at that time. While the outcome of a review may have been to continue applying the restriction, we consider that there was a missed opportunity by the landlord here.
The unreasonable behaviour policy states that residents will retain access to its services. However, it does not provide steps on how it would manage such restrictions in relation to residents reporting repairs. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged and addressed the resident’s emails that said his flat was flooded, his kitchen uninhabitable and had damp and mould in its response to the resident. Especially, as it also received a photograph that this Service has seen that suggests that the resident’s kitchen was flooded. The landlord’s failure to address these matters would have left him with little reassurance that it was it taking his reports seriously. This would have caused him distress and inconvenience and may have exacerbated the matter further.
The resident also informed the landlord at this time that its contractor had carried out a gas check on the property on 9 January 2023. The evidence available does not suggest that the landlord contacted the contractor to discuss the condition of the resident’s flat. In not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to ascertain the condition of the resident’s flat. This may have gone some way to understand what reasonable and appropriate steps it should take to ensure the property was safe.
It was not until 16 January 2023 that it attended the resident’s flat again. This was approximately 8 days after it was unable to gain access. Given the nature of the matter and the resident’s concerns it is unclear why the landlord did not attend sooner. This would have been in accordance with its responsive repair handbook, which stated that burst pipes or major water leaks should be attended within 24 hours. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing.
The landlord was unable to gain access again on that day. Due to the lack of contemporaneous records, whether it took reasonable steps to inform the resident of the visit is unknown. It is also unclear whether it had updated its records to show that that the resident had left his keys with Neighbour B and was stayingat his relative’s home. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate why it had carried out another visit at that time without taking steps to ensure that the resident was made aware of the appointment, and it was able to gain access beforehand.
It attended again on 27 January 2023 and reported no access. Although the landlord had informed the resident’s MP of the visit on this occasion, it is unclear whether it informed the resident.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord recorded that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s flat again. It noted that it had visited Neighbour B to collect the resident’s keys but there was no answer. This went some way to suggest that it was considering taking some action to investigate the matter properly. However, it is unclear whether it informed neighbour B that it was going to collect the resident’s keys. While the landlord was not strictly obliged to, it would have been reasonable for it to consider contacting Neighbour B given that he had agreed to hand over the resident’s keys as necessary.
As with the previous attendances, it is unclear whether the landlord took into account the circumstances as stated above. In our ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report, we said “failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate.” In this case, the landlord’s poor record keeping suggests that it missed several opportunities to consider that resident’s specific circumstances which resulted in avoidable no access attendances, which meant that it was unable to investigate the resident’s reported repairs in a timely manner.
In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that it had developed an action plan to consider next steps if it was unable to gain access. At this point the resident had reported that his flat had damp and mould and had been flooded over a month prior. Also, the landlord had attended approximately 4 times at this point without access. It is acknowledged that the resident is obliged to provide the landlord with access to the property under the terms of the tenancy agreement. As the resident made the decision not to reside at the property, he made arrangements to leave his key with Neighbour B to facilitate access. The landlord was made aware of the arrangement and we have not seen any evidence to suggest that it informed the resident that this was not acceptable to it. As such, the resident had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord could still gain access. Given the nature of the reported repair and the resident’s photograph of the condition of his kitchen, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not implement an action plan to consider what steps it would take if it could not gain access. Such an action plan would have allowed the landlord to consider whether entering the property to assess the condition without the resident’s presence, whether that was with his keys or by forced entry as outlined in its responsive repair handbook was appropriate. That it did not is a failing.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord told the resident that due to the communication restrictions that were in place he could only contact it by letter. While this may have been the case, given the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s concerns that he had not heard from it and provided him with next steps and direction while reminding him of the restrictions in place. It also missed another opportunity to sign post the resident to support services to support him with effectively engaging with it. This would have demonstrated that it was taking steps to resolve his reported repairs, while managing the resident’s expectations about its communication with it going forward.
In its stage 2 complaint response, it told the resident that it attended his flat, but was unable to gain access. However, it was aware that the resident had left his keys with his neighbour therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this in its complaint response. Such as explaining to the resident whether it would or would not gain entry without his presence. This would have provided the resident with clarity on the landlord’s position on the matter.
Also, the landlordfailed to address what steps it was going to take to ensure that the resident’s reported repairs were resolved. It is noted that it was informed during this case that the resident hadmoved out of his flat, which it was investigating as a separate matter. However, while the investigations were ongoing, it still had a legal obligationto resolve the resident’s reported repairs. Additionally, it had a responsibility to ensure that the flat was safe and in a reasonable condition that would not affect neighbouring properties. Therefore, that it did not take further steps to ensure the repairs were resolved was a failing.
While the landlord informed this Service that that it had gained possession of the resident’s flat in December 2023, there is no evidence to suggest that it took any further steps during this period to resolve the resident’s reported repairs. It therefore appears that the landlord did not take any further steps to ensure that it had inspected the property or carried out remedial works to resolve the issue that had been reported. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord acted in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement when responding to the resident’s reports. This was a significant failing
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. take reasonable steps to meaningfully investigate and resolve the resident’s reports that his flat was flooded and had damp and mould.
2. consider what action it could take to gain access to the resident’s flat to resolve the matter when it was aware that he was not staying at the property.
3. take into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities and signpost him to supporting agencies to support him to engage with it effectively, given the communication restrictions it had in place.
4. reasonably inform and update the resident on his reported repairs, taking into consideration its communication restrictions.
Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports that his flat was flooded and had damp and mould.

The resident’s request for compensation for damage to his personal belongings

On 9 and 10 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that he wanted compensation for his personal belongings that were damaged as a result of the flood at the property. He added that he believed the cause of the floor to be a burst pipe.
Although the landlord responded to the resident’s emails, it did not address his request for compensation. It is noted that the resident’s emails contained profanity and content that the landlord had previously advised was unacceptable, and that contact restrictions were in place. However there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered including its insurance team details in its response to the resident in order for him to have access to its services. The resident had advised that he considered the landlord was liable for the damage to his belongings and it was therefore imperative that the landlord considered this or referred it to its insurer in a timely matter. That it did not is a failing.
The resident repeated his request via his MP on 16 January 2023. In response the landlord explained that he could make a claim via its insurance team and provided the relevant details. This was in accordance with its policy that stated that all liability claims should be made directly to its insurance team. Therefore the landlord’s response, although delayed was reasonable.
It is unclear when the resident made a claim to the landlord’s in-house insurance team. However, the records show that on 17 February 2023 the resident had not heard back from them. As we do not have a contemporaneous record of the landlord’s actions at this time, it is unclear whether it took reasonable steps to ensure that the matter was progressed. This suggests a further record keeping issue. Therefore it has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to ensure that the resident’s request was progressed in a timely manner.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that its insurance team rejected the resident’s claim for compensation for the damage to his personal belongings. It also said that it could not take accountability for the damage that the resident discovered when he returned to his flat.
Overall, the landlord referred the resident to its insurance team to make a liability claim, which was appropriate. It explained to the resident that his claim had been rejected which went some way to inform the resident of the outcome. However, although we do not have a copy of the landlord’s public liability policy and procedure; it is best practice for landlords to inform residents that they have the right to appeal its decisions. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did so, which was unreasonable. It also failed to consider whether it was reasonable to respond to the resident’s initial request for compensation in a timely manner, which caused him time and trouble. It also did not demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to progress the matter when the resident had raised concerns that he had not heard from its insurance team. Therefore we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged personal belongings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On receipt of communication from the resident, we contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023. We outlined the resident’s complaint and told the landlord to reply to the resident within 10 or 20 working days according to the stage of the resident’s complaint. This was in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process. It explained that the resident’s MP had previously made similar enquiries as the resident’s complaint and therefore processed his complaint as an escalated MP enquiry at stage 2. It said that its process allowed it to do so. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that MP enquiries would be treated outside the complaints process. While the landlord’s comments are noted, there is no provision in its policy that allows for escalated MP enquiries to be responded to at stage 2 of its process. We also do not have evidence of any other process that allows this provision. Therefore it is unclear what process the landlord was referring to.
Also, if such a process was in force at the time of the complaint, given that the landlord’s complaint policy stated that MP enquiries would be treated outside its complaint’s policy; allowing escalated MP enquiries to be made at stage 2 of its complaints policy appears to undermine this provision. Furthermore, it does not allow residents full access and benefit of its complaint service, such as an investigation into a resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure, as MP enquiries and a complaints are processed differently.
Given that the resident made a complaint separately from the MP enquiries, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated it as a new complaint at stage 1. As stated above, this would have allowed the resident to fully use its complaint service and for the landlord to respond to the resident in line with its policy obligations. Not only is it imperative that residents should have the opportunity to have their complaint reviewed by a person not previously involved at stage 2, it is also in the landlord’s interests to ensure that complaints are reviewed. The stage 2 process allows the landlord the opportunity to review its handling of the matter and its initial complaint response and consider whether the correct outcome had been reached and if any action is required to put things right. As such, that the landlord did not utilise its full complaints procedure was not only a failing that was the cause of detriment to the resident, but it was a missed opportunity to identify the failings that have been highlighted by our investigation.
The landlord said that the resident’s complaint was “similar” to the issues already raised by his MP. However, it failed to address his complaint about staff conduct which had not been part of the MP’s enquiries. Therefore it would have been reasonable for it to have addressed this part of his complaint. The resident also complained that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of his repairs. Although the landlord’s response said that it had attended the resident’s flat, it did not address the resident’s specific concern that there had been delays. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. That it did not was a failing and a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord issued its response on 3 March 2023, which was 5 days passed the given timescales. While it is noted that it was a slight delay, the evidence available demonstrates that it did not inform the resident that its response would be delayed which was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to inform the resident of the delay also does not align with the Code that stipulates that when a complaint response is delayed, landlords should inform the resident. It is noted that the landlord’s own policy is silent on this matter.
The landlord stated that it hadattended the resident’s flat twice and that it was unable to gain access. However this does not correspond with the evidence provided that suggests that it attended approximately 4 times. This suggests a record keeping issues. It also suggests that the landlord’s level of investigation into the concerns that had been raised was inadequate.
On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. respond to the resident within a timely manner.
2. address his specific concerns.
3. demonstrate that it was in accordance with its own complaint policy when it escalated the MP’s enquiry to stage 2 of its complaint process.

Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s wider investigation

In January 2023 the Ombudsman carried out a wider investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The investigation was prompted by concerns from our casebook about the landlord’s approach to leaks, damp and mould.
This investigation allowed the Service to investigate whether the landlord’s actions amounted to a systemic failure. In July 2023 the Ombudsman issued a report following its investigation. It included several key recommendations across areas that have also been highlighted in this case. These recommendations were around vulnerability policies and practices, knowledge and information management and its unacceptable behaviour policy.
Given that the time period of this case was during the investigation, The events relating to this complaint took place prior to our special investigation report. As such, we are satisfied that we have already made orders aimed at addressing and resolving the issues that our special investigation highlighted. However, an order has been made for the landlord to update the Service on its progress on our recommendations outlined in the July 2023 report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that his home was flooded.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his personal belongings
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination of this report. The landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation
2. pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of his reported flood, damp and mould.
  2. £50 for the distress, time and trouble cause by the landlord’s inadequate handling of the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged belongings.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. confirm with this Service that it will consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.
Within 12 weeks of the determination of this report. The landlord should provide this Service with an update on its progression on our recommendations outlined in our July 2023 special investigation. It should include its progress and any future action plans on the following recommendations under the following categories in our report:
1. unacceptable behaviour.
2. vulnerabilities.
3. knowledge and information management.