Hyde Housing Association Limited (202213207)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213207

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Kitchen and bathroom repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 21 January 2008. The landlord is a housing association.
Various sub-contractors were involved with the repairs at this property. For ease of reference, the main contractors are referred to as sub-contractor A, B, and C throughout this report.

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord dated 17 February 2021, she said she reported problems with ventilation approximately 5 or 6 years ago. We expect a resident to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of issues occurring. This is reflected in paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. As such, this adjudication considers events from September 2020.
Within the resident’s recent communication with this Service, she referred to outstanding guttering work and a broken gate. These issues were not included within the initial complaint to the landlord. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. It remains open for the resident to contact the landlord directly about these concerns and raise a new complaint if required.

Relevant policies, obligations, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The ‘conditions of tenancy’ document states the resident is responsible for internal decorations and small repairs within the home, such as repairs to minor fixtures and fittings. This is reiterated within the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure which explains the resident is responsible for internal decorations, minor repairs to kitchen units such as drawers and doors, and repairs to furniture such as cupboard doors.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure (dated August 2020) says an ‘anytime repair’ will be completed within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedure.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process (dated January 2021) with an optional informal stage prior to stage 1. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires longer at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and may take an additional 10 working days to respond.

Summary of events

The property was inspected by sub-contractor A for damp and mould on 27 October 2020. No damp or mould was identified. The surveyor noted in their report that the property had no ventilation in the kitchen. In the bathroom they observed an internal hole in the wall with flexi duct showing. They recommended for a fan to be installed in the bathroom.
A repair order for damp and mould works was raised on 6 November 2020. The record does not provide details of the works requested. This was recorded as cancelled on the landlord’s system.
The resident said sub-contractor A attended again in February 2021 and told her that an extractor fan was required.
The resident made a formal complaint on 17 February 2021. She said:
1. There was no ventilation in the bathroom, causing mould and condensation, and it constantly smelled damp.
2. She had damaged paintwork due to water stains.
3. Her kitchen cupboards were falling apart.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and made enquiries. Sub-contractor A said it had made a mistake previously and that the property had an internally ducted system. They explained that rather than adding an extractor fan to the bathroom, the landlord should repair or replace the extraction unit in the loft and ensure vents were installed in each room.
The landlord attended the property on 26 February 2021 to further review the resident’s report of damp and mould due to lack of ventilation. The report from this visit asked for a work order to be raised for a replacement bath panel and skirting, to be repaired on 17 March 2021.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint twice in March 2021. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident by telephone on 8 April 2021 and followed up in writing the same day. She reiterated that her kitchen cupboards required repairs due to usage over time. The landlord attempted to visit the property the same day and no access was recorded. A card was left.
The landlord referenced in its communications that an operative attended the resident’s home on 14 April 2021 and took photos of the areas the resident said required attention.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord asked for the following work orders to be raised:
1. Fit new skirting to the bathroom.
2. Fit new bath panels.
3. Fit 2 handles and 1 hinge to the kitchen units.
4. Ease and adjust kitchen units.
5. Reseal around the bath.
6. Anti-fungal wash and stain block bathroom walls/ceiling where necessary.
The landlord’s records show a work order to conduct servicing/replacement to the internally ducted system was cancelled. The date of cancellation is unclear from the evidence provided.
On 20 April 2021, the work orders as stated in paragraph 18 were raised.
The landlord’s internal email dated 5 May 2021 said the resident was told that she would not receive a new kitchen or bathroom, and she refused the works summarised in paragraph 18. The email states the landlord contacted sub-contractor B to request a survey of the ventilation system.
The landlord called the resident on 1 June 2021. She disputed that she refused repair work. She was upset at the lack of communication and asked for a different surveyor to be appointed.
A survey took place on 16 June 2021 to check the condition of the bathroom and kitchen. A copy of the survey has not been shared with this Service, however an email from the surveyor confirmed it agreed for contractors to adjust a kitchen door and put in 2 handles. Notes state an appointment would be made for the roof to be checked for condensation and for the air ventilation system to be examined. Throughout June 2021, the landlord chased sub-contractor A several times for an appointment.
The landlord’s stage 1 response letter is dated 24 June 2021. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay starting its complaint investigation and said it was short staffed.
2. It upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation in view of the service the resident experienced.
3. To resolve the complaint, it committed to:
  1. Attending to the resident’s kitchen doors.
  2. Completing the recommended works in the resident’s bathroom, including vent installation.
  3. Investigating the roof area for condensation.
4. It provided the direct contact information of the person overseeing the complaint commitments.
5. The resident’s kitchen was not fitted by the landlord and a request for a replacement would be rejected by its stock investment team because of this. A surveyor had reported that the kitchen was in good condition and not beyond economical repair. On 16 June 2021, a surveyor agreed with the resident to adjust a door and put on 2 handles which the resident was satisfied with.
6. The following repairs had been raised in the bathroom:
  1. Installation of a ventilation system.
  2. Fit skirting in the bathroom where required.
  3. Fit new bath panel and end panel.
  4. Reseal around bath.
  5. Anti-fungal wash and stain block where necessary.
7. Sub-contractor A would install the ventilation system on 30 June 2021.
8. The surveyor requested for the roof to be investigated for condensation and for the hallway landing ceiling and walls to be attended to due to damage caused due to water ingress. This decoration was not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
9. Details of the complaint would be passed to its contract managers and surveying team leaders to review what had happened and identify where it went wrong. They would then consider if further training was required, or whether it needed to review its processes to avoid similar situations arising in the future.
The landlord emailed its staff internally setting out its action plan for the property on 29 June 2021 and asked various members of staff to raise the work orders.
An email provided by the landlord indicates it sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 1 July 2021. The stage 1 letter attached to the email was dated 24 June 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord during July and August 2021. She was dissatisfied various contractors had attended her property but works remained outstanding. Records show the landlord’s investigated this internally.
The landlord’s surveyor said it spoke to the resident on 17 and 18 August 2021 to discuss the installation of extractor fans. They reported the resident did not want electrical trunking running along the ceiling or walls. As such, the surveyor said it arranged a quote to rewire the fans above the ceiling, while removing and replacing sections of ceiling. The surveyor explained there was ducting in place for 3 extractor fans vented through the loft, and they were waiting on a quote to re-tile the bathroom, fit a new bath panel, and lay new flooring.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2021 to say she was furious as nothing had been done on her property and she had not heard from the complaints team about escalating matters.
On 7 September 2021, records show the landlord reviewed its operative’s note on the work order for the kitchen repairs. It said it overhauled the kitchen units, including refixing doors. However, it was unable to match the existing handles. As such, the drilling centres would be different from the original which would mean drilling additional holes in the doors/drawer fronts which the resident did not want. It noted the unit doors/drawer fronts were not of standard size and the existing handles were no longer available. It was recorded that the resident said she wanted to seek legal advice.
Internally, the landlord said it needed to find out whether the kitchen was installed by the developer or the resident. On 7 September 2021, the landlord noted on its system that the resident had previously cancelled 2 repair appointments.
The resident chased for an update on her complaint on 15 September 2021. She was told her stage 2 escalation had not been authorised, however the bathroom repairs were approved, and a surveyor was trying to source ‘like-for-like’ kitchen handles. It explained it would not replace her kitchen or her kitchen doors, and the surveyor was speaking to a different sub-contractor about the ventilation works. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s update and said she had already asked the surveyor to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said sub-contractor A attended twice, sub-contractor B attended once, and she had an appointment with sub-contractor C on 30 September 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2021. It explained it usually used sub-contractor A for ventilation works but due to a backlog of work, it was using another contractor instead. It believed that the unit which provided full property ventilation needed repair or replacement along with the missing vents. It also stated her home was initially built for private sale by the developers, therefore its specification differed from the landlord’s standard properties. This was the reason she had a non-standard kitchen. It said it was still trying to source suitable kitchen handles.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated again on 21 September 2021. The landlord chased internally for an update. A contractor said they had given the resident a start date of 25 October 2021 for the bathroom works. They were not aware of the position with the kitchen handles and asked if another colleague was dealing with this. They also said it appeared another sub-contractor was dealing with the ventilation aspect.
The landlord informed the resident it was escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 23 September 2021.
The landlord chased for an update from sub-contractor C on 14 October 2021. Sub-contractor C responded the same day and said it had attended the property and a new ventilation unit was needed. It was waiting for its supplier to give a price for the replacement.
The landlord’s repairs log states the bathroom repairs were completed on 23 October 2021, tiling completed on 3 November 2021 and painting of the hallway ceiling, walls and staircase wall was completed on 20 December 2021. Sub-contractor C said it fitted a new ventilation unit on 24 November 2021.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 20 December 2021.The landlord confirmed it had checked with its surveyor and all works had been completed. The resident said this was incorrect – works had been cancelled. It is unclear from the evidence available what works she was referring to. She said the service received was appalling.
In January 2022, the resident submitted another complaint form to the landlord. She mentioned the history of the complaint and said contractors broke the light in her toilet and her front door during the repairs. She said she sourced a replacement light and was waiting for reimbursement from the landlord. She also said she was struggling to get works done. The landlord said this was logged as a stage 1 complaint.
The resident chased for the £150 compensation from her previous complaint and reimbursement for the light fitting throughout January and February 2022. In March 2022, she asked for a final response so that she could make a referral to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
A contractor attended on 21 March 2022 to clean all paint marks from flooring and edging, polish the ground floor flooring, rub down walls where plastering took place and wash/vacuum stairway carpets leading up to the landing. The work order has a completion date of 8 April 2022 on the landlord’s system.
An appointment was made for sub-contractor C to attend on 29 March 2022 to fit an expansion valve to the ventilation system and investigate a noise the resident had reported. This appointment was cancelled by the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2022 to confirm the complaint was being considered at stage 2. The surveying lead told the complaints officer that they believed all works had been completed.
The resident chased the landlord for a response several times throughout May 2022, explaining that the bathroom fan still did not work and there was condensation. The landlord made further enquiries with sub-contractor C who reattended the property on 17 June 2022. Sub-contractor C said the ventilation worked perfectly but the resident was saying the bathroom had a lot of condensation so the only way to fix this would be to install a bigger unit. The contractor stated they believed what she had was more than enough for the size of the house and had good air flow.
The landlord extended its stage 2 response deadline on 22 June 2022. It issued its stage 2 response on 6 July 2022. It said:
1. All complaint related works had been completed, except for the front door repair which was scheduled for 21 July 2022.
2. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to fix the problems.
3. All plastering and remedial repairs were complete. It recognised the resident was dissatisfied the walls were not perfectly flat, however it was its policy to ensure the walls were ready to take redecoration – which it had done.
4. The ventilation was found to be in working order and adequate for the size of the property. It asked the resident to monitor the condensation over the coming months and to contact it should matters worsen.
5. Reimbursement for the light fitting was done in February 2022.
6. It attended to repair the kitchen handles as agreed. The resident had reported holes. The landlord said after examining photos, the holes appeared to be an issue with the resident’s flooring which was her responsibility to fix.
7. During the bathroom repairs, the resident reported damage to her front door. An appointment was scheduled for this to be attended on 21 July 2022. Contact information for a named staff member responsible for overseeing the repair was provided.
8. It had taken too long to process the repairs. Some of the repairs responded to at stage 2 were additional and not included within the original complaint.
9. It apologised for the impact of the repair delays and offered £300 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
  2. £50 for the poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble.
  3. £100 for the delay completing the repairs.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Actions after the end of the internal complaints process

The landlord’s repair log states a repair to the front door was completed on 22 July 2022.
The work order for replacing kitchen unit handles was marked as completed on 15 September 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 July 2023 to review its decision about compensation. It increased the compensation by £200, offering an additional £100 for its complaint handling failure and £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the repairs process.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman has recently made several orders in other investigations into this landlord about reviewing its repairs service delivery and its knowledge and information management, for instance in cases 202112886, 202203159, and 202121443. The Ombudsman has therefore not made orders or recommendations around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account going forward.

The landlord’s handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs

Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required.
The earliest recorded date within the repair history provided to this Service by the landlord is 28 September 2020. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to evidence when the resident first reported mould and ventilation problems within her bathroom, nor what prompted the inspection undertaken in October 2020. This is a record keeping failure. Even though time limits apply to complaints, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide a comprehensive repair history for the property.
The inspection report dated 27 October 2020 observed no visible signs of mould within the property and recommended that the landlord installed a fan in the bathroom. The landlord has not explained why it arranged for sub-contractor A to attend the property on a second occasion in February 2021 or why there was a 4-month delay progressing matters.
On 18 February 2021, sub-contractor A explained the ventilation system in the loft needed to be repaired or replaced and to ensure the vents were installed/connected. An internal email from sub-contractor C says the ventilation system was replaced on 24 November 2021 – this was 39 weeks and 6 days later. This is significantly outside of the timescale of 20 working days set out within the landlord’s repairs policy. While the Ombudsman appreciates that some of these delays were due to a backlog with the landlord’s initial sub-contractor, sourcing another contractor and agreeing said works with the resident, the evidence available also demonstrates a lack of active repairs management. This contributed to delays which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Further, the landlord’s internal records show that it agreed the following bathroom actions in April 2021 – fit skirting, replace bath panels, reseal around the bath and anti-fungal wash/stain block where applicable. The landlord’s repair log records the bathroom repairs being completed in October 2021 – 6 months later. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repair timescale of 20 working days as set out in its policy.
The landlord said that, at times, the resident refused works. The resident disputes this. The Ombudsman has not received sufficient evidence to fully assess whether the resident’s actions had a significant impact on the resolution of the complaint related repairs, although the landlord’s comments have been noted.
In accordance with the Decent Home Standard, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. When the resident reported problems with her kitchen, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection to assess its condition. The surveyor concluded that the kitchen was in good condition and provided photos to the landlord. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not replace the kitchen was reasonable in the circumstances.
Within the stage 1 response, the landlord said its stock investment team would reject an application for a replacement kitchen as it was not fitted by the landlord. It is apparent from the landlord’s internal emails that there was confusion over the responsibility of the kitchen and who installed it. This is an indication of a record keeping failure as the landlord was not initially aware that it had purchased the property from the developer with a non-standard kitchen.
The landlord’s repair policy states residents are responsible for minor repairs to kitchen units such as drawers and doors and repairs to furniture such as cupboard doors. This is reiterated within the tenancy conditions. Nonetheless, as the landlord committed to kitchen works, the Ombudsman would expect it to complete these within the timescales set out in its repair policy.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord agreed to adjust a kitchen door handle and replace 2 handles. One work order was raised on 25 June 2021 and recorded as complete on 11 August 2021. A second work order was raised on 14 July 2022 and marked as complete on 15 September 2022. However, within the stage 2 response from July 2022, the landlord said all complaint related works had been completed. This indicates a failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management processes. The landlord explained there were mitigating factors, such as the existing handles no longer being available, and the resident did not want further holes drilled outside of the original drilling centres. It also recorded that the resident said she wanted to seek legal advice. However, after considering the evidence provided, the Ombudsman finds the time to complete this repair was unreasonable.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that outstanding repairs are monitored and managed and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Landlord and contractor staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord’s lack of clarity on the actions of its contractors and state of repairs indicates that there were shortcomings in its record keeping, which subsequently impacted the landlord’s overall communication with its resident and the timeliness of the repairs.
There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted it on multiple occasions between February 2021 and July 2022. The landlord failed to proactively engage with the resident, set out an action plan with defined timescales or keep her sufficiently updated. Instead, when the resident requested updates, the landlord repeatedly contacted other staff members and contractors to find out the updated position. It is evident the resident spent more than a reasonable amount of time chasing for updates and trying to progress the repairs. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issues, and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord ultimately recognised within both complaint responses the delays in addressing the resident’s repair concerns through to resolution and the impact this had. At stage 2, it offered compensation of £50 for the poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble, £100 for the repair delays and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord reviewed its compensation in July 2023 and offered the resident an additional £100 for her patience during the repairs process.
The Ombudsman finds that the £350 compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient given the extent of the delays, the poor communication and the potential impact of damp. Additionally, it is recognised that the landlord did not use its formal complaints process to offer appropriate redress. After considering the individual circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration. An additional £150 compensation has been ordered below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained on 17 February 2021. The stage 1 response is dated 24 June 2021 – over 18 weeks later. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 5 August 2021. The stage 2 response is dated 6 July 2022 – over 47 weeks later.
It is evident the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in a protracted process and a lack of clear and meaningful updates. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open for an unreasonable duration.
The Code states landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint, it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident requested a stage 2 escalation in August 2021. The following month, she was informed her request had not been authorised. This was inappropriate as the repairs the landlord committed to at stage 1 had not been completed within a reasonable period. On 15 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that her stage 2 escalation request was not authorised as repairs were progressing. In the period that followed, the resident requested a complaint escalation on numerous occasions which the landlord did not suitably respond to. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord did not treat the resident’s escalation request fairly and acted outside its obligations under the Code, as defined above.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 2 until 23 May 2022. The Ombudsman is minded that the complaint handling delays and the landlord’s initial refusal to escalate the complaint blocked access to the complaints process and delayed the resident in escalating her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The landlord’s actions here were not fair or reasonable, and added further confusion, frustration, and distress to the resident. This further compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns.
The Code states that when responding to a complaint, the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In this case, repair timescales were not agreed at stage 1 and works remained outstanding months after the stage 1 response, demonstrating a lack of oversight.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord said it had reported the resident’s experience to its contracts manager and it was working to improve its customer service. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. At stage 2, no learning was identified within the letter to the resident, however the complaint handler recorded internally that repair requests needed to be raised via the online service or customer service agents to ensure works are raised promptly, rather than through surveyors or supervisors. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord should have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience to improve its service provision, complaints handling and management of repairs.
The Ombudsman recognises that in July 2023, the landlord increased its compensation for its complaint handling failures from £50 to £150. It is a concern that this offer was made more than a year after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This approach opens questions as to how effectively the landlord is using its complaints process to offer redress and whether resolutions are only being properly considered once a resident has brought a complaint to the Ombudsman. Considering the failures identified, the missed opportunities to put things right within a reasonable period and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman finds this sum does not fairly resolve the complaint. To this end, an additional £150 compensation has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of kitchen and bathroom repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled bathroom and kitchen repairs within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. It also did not offer appropriate compensation.
The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at both stages and it refused the resident’s stage 2 escalation request for a significant period. It did not take sufficient action to put things right for the resident or learn from outcomes. Additionally, it did not make an offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures that reflected the resident’s full experience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident the £500 compensation as per its offer (if it has not done so already).
3. Pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the repair delays and subsequent impact.
4. Pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
5. Write to the resident confirming that she will be treated the same as residents with a standard kitchen during future stock investment programs.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The resident told this Service in January 2024 that she is having problems with ventilation. It is unclear whether this has been reported to the landlord. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to investigate this.

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training needs to ensure they appropriately record, investigate, and resolve complaints in accordance with the Code.
It is recommended that the landlord demonstrates more detailed learning from a complaint within its future complaint responses. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle – learn from outcomes.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks, setting out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.