London Borough of Croydon (202203123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203123

London Borough of Croydon

15 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
3. Allegations of ASB made against the resident.
4. The investigation into an alleged incident between the resident and a member of its staff.
5. The resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. At the time of raising his complaint he was living in a 2 bedroom flat in a block, and had lived there since 2015. The resident was temporarily decanted in December 2023, and the decant was made permanent in January 2024.
The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having physical health conditions, a disability, and mental health support needs.
In August 2021, the landlord started to receive reports from residents in the block that the resident was committing acts of ASB. The reports of ASB centred around the resident’s dogs causing a nuisance by barking. It was also reported the resident was causing a disturbance by playing music from his cars that were parked in the car park at the block. The resident made counter allegations of ASB relating to his neighbours playing loud music late at night, also in August 2021.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter inviting him to attend an interview following an “incident” with a member of its staff that occurred on 14 September 2021. The letter outlined its expectations in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, and that it was considering taking action against the resident, in line with its ASB procedures.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in June 2022 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of a mice infestation that had been ongoing for “12 months”. He also stated that he was being accused of perpetrating ASB, but was not the only one who played music and had dogs that barked. He said he felt the landlord was “singling [him] out”.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 22 July 2022, and explained the actions it had taken in the ASB cases. It found no failings in its handling of the reports of ASB made by the resident, and no failings in its handling of the allegations of ASB against the resident. It outlined its actions in relation to the mice infestation, and gave the resident advice to keep his property clean to prevent further infestations. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and wanted to take his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord completed pest control visits to lay bait and complete repairs to block the entry points in the resident property in July, August, and September 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2022. It outlined the actions it had taken in relation to the ASB cases, and offered the resident mediation with his neighbours. The landlord apologised for the delays in its response to the mice infestation, and the delays in handling the complaint. It offered the resident £300 in compensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 June 2023, and asked us to investigate his complaint, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response, and the compensation offered. The resident was temporarily decanted from his property in December 2023, which was made permanent in January 2024.

Assessment and finding

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint, in June 2023, he expressed a concern about the landlord’s handling of various repairs at his property related to damp and mould. The evidence indicates that the resident had an ongoing disrepair claim at the time also.
In September 2023, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response addressing its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the resident asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2, or that the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response addressing its handling of the issue.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Considering this, we cannot investigate at this aspect of the resident’s complaint at this time. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint.

Resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will acknowledge “every complaint” of ASB within 3 working days. When it is of the view there is no further action it can take it will tell the complainant it is closing their case, and explain the reasons why. Where further actions are necessary an action plan will be discussed with the complainant, including timescales. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it uses: mediation; informal warnings; warning letters; acceptable behaviour contracts; and notice of seeking possession as its methods to tackle ASB.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows that the resident first raised concerns about experiencing ASB from his neighbours in August 2021. This Service has seen no evidence that on receipt of this report that the landlord sought to formally open an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, or completed an action plan. This was not in line with accepted best practice, or its policy.
It is noted that the resident had not made claims of specific incidents of ASB, but it would have been appropriate to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns in more detail. We have seen no evidence that it sought to do so at this time, which was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident an inconvenience as he was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in his case, and was not given formal advice about steps he could take.
The landlord told this Service, in May 2024 as part of our enquiries for this investigation, that the resident reported “a flat in his block that he alleged were causing ASB, but did not provide an address or any details of the ASB”. It is noted the landlord needs evidence of specific concerns before it can take action. However, opening a formal ASB case and creating an action plan with the resident would have helped manage his expectations about what action it could take, and what evidence the resident needed to provide. It is also noted that the landlord’s complaint response did this, but this was nearly a year after the resident first reported concerns.
Throughout 2021, the resident supplied the landlord with over 60 audio recordings in support of his ASB case. The evidence seen for this investigation indicates that the landlord assessed each recording and made notes about what could be heard, and whether anything was actionable. The notes show it was unable to identify who was heard in the recordings or whether the content amounted to actionable ASB. This is evidence that the landlord gave the evidence appropriate consideration, and took the resident’s concerns seriously. It is, however, unclear if its findings were shared with the resident, which was a shortcoming in its communication with the resident about his reports of ASB.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of July 2022, went some way to putting right the landlord’s previous poor communication about the resident’s reports of ASB. Its response explained that it had issued warning letter to resident’s without identify the resident, about the alleged behaviour. That it issued such warning was appropriate. That it communicated the details of the action it had taken in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB went some wat to putting right its earlier poor communication.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2022, provided a thorough and detailed explanation of the landlord’s position in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. It outlined that it did not have enough evidence to pursue concerns the resident had raised. It also cited there were only “some” occasions where it could take action as the resident was not forthcoming with “finer” details of his allegations. It also explained what evidence it needed in order to progress a case, such as names, dates, and times of incidents. This was as supportive approach as it outlined its position clearly, and explained to the resident what was needed in order to progress a case.
The stage 2 response also evidences that it took the resident’s concerns about hate crime seriously, and encouraged him to report the alleged hate crime to the police. This was appropriate as a hate crime is a criminal matter, and the police would be best placed to investigate the matter and take further action, as necessary. It also explained that if the resident provided more information about the alleged incidents of hate crime, it would take the appropriate steps to investigate. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach.
The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. When the resident did supply evidence the landlord gave it the appropriate consideration. However, its communication about its findings, and the ASB case more generally was poor. We have see no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment or action plan, in line with accepted best practice.
Its complaint responses communicated its position clearly, and was supportive by explaining the next steps the resident could take. However, the complaint responses failed to address the fact its communication, earlier in the case was poor. There was a lack of learning about how its poor communication had caused the resident an inconvenience. As such, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Allegations of ASB made against the resident

During 2021, the landlord received multiple claims that the resident was committing ASB at the property. As outlined above, the role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations.
The reports of ASB made by residents in the block mainly centred around the resident’s use of his vehicles in the car park (allegedly sleeping in his cars and playing loud music from them). The reports were also about noise disturbance caused by his dogs.
The landlord removed 1 of the residents cars from the car park, as part of its response. It is not within the remit of this investigation to consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions in relation to parking enforcement, and its decision to remove the vehicle. This is because the landlord’s action were performed under its function as a local authority, and therefore not within our jurisdiction. It is worth noting the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman considered the landlord’s actions in relation to this matter in a complaint it investigated in June 2023.
Due to the allegations of ASB made against the resident, the landlord contacted the police in August 2021, to get information about any reported incidents at the block. This was appropriate in the circumstances as it sought to adopt a multi agency approach in response to the reports. The landlord took a thorough approach and sought to establish the facts. Its approach was reasonable, and in line with the approach set out in its policy.
It is apparent that during the ASB case, in 2021, the landlord became concerned about the resident’s wellbeing. The landlord took a supportive approach and contacted the resident’s GP, made a referral to adult social care, and its tenancy sustainment team. This was proportionate in the circumstance, and evidence the landlord had the appropriate consideration of the resident’s vulnerability. The landlord did not seek to take punitive action at that time, and took steps to try and support the resident with his wellbeing, and to maintain his tenancy.
In addition to adopting the supportive approach, as outlined above, the landlord issued the resident with a warning letter in September 2021, which outlined its expectations, as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This was a reasonable and proportionate response. The landlord sought to outline its expected behaviours in conjunction with seeking to put support in place to help the resident maintain his tenancy.
In March 2022, the landlord asked the resident to enter in to an ‘acceptable behaviour agreement’(ABA). It is noted that the resident did not agree to do so, and was unhappy with the claims made in the agreement. However, based on the evidence available, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and in line with its ASB policy. The agreement set out the landlord’s expectations, in line with the resident’s obligations in his tenancy agreement. Considering the resident’s vulnerability, the landlord’s approach was proportionate and is evidence it considered the resident’s individual circumstances when deciding what action was appropriate.
The landlord issued the resident a ‘notice of seeking possession’ (NOSP) in July 2022, and in an accompanying letter it advised the resident it was the “first step” in seeking to evict him. The evidence indicates that the landlord was provided with further reports, and supporting information, throughout early 2022. The landlord’s letter set out the occasions in which it had evidence the resident had breached the ABA, which was appropriate. The landlord’s approach was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is noted the landlord did not issue possession proceedings against the resident, and sought to continue to work with the resident to maintain his tenancy.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response, July 2022, to explain why it had issued an ABA and NOSP, and the resident’s actions that had caused it to do so. It is noted that the resident was unhappy that the landlord had done so. However, the landlord’s response was clear, and set out its expectations of the resident’s behaviour, and his tenancy obligations. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2022, assessed its handling of the allegations of ASB against the resident in detail. It outlined the aspects of its ASB policy it had used in its handling of the case, and set out its expectations of the resident’s behaviour. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That it outlined how it had followed its policy gave the resident clarity about why it had taken the actions it had.
The tone of the complaint response was supportive and it reiterated that it had “no other option” but to issue a NOSP, based on the evidence it had. It explained that it would continue to monitor the case, and only further evidence of ASB would lead to it taking court action. This was proportionate in the circumstances and evidence that landlord was not seeking to end the resident’s tenancy, except as a last resort. This was a fair and proportionate approach.
The landlord’s handling of the allegations of ASB against the resident was fair and proportionate. The landlord was evidently concerned about the resident’s welfare and took a supportive, and multi agency, approach. It considered the resident’s vulnerability, and his individual circumstances, while being consistent in its expectations of his behaviour. It appropriately followed its ASB policy and escalated its actions based on the evidence it had. Its complaint responses were clear and set out what actions it had taken in line with its policy. It reiterated it did not want to evict the resident, but was taking action in line with the evidence it had.

The investigation into an alleged incident between the resident and a member of its staff.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that when a complaint is made about a member of staff the investigating officer should be independent of the complaint made. Wherever possible, the person responding to the complaint should be the manager of the person named within the complaint.
The resident’s reports of staff misconduct relate to an incident that occurred in September 2022, where the resident was allegedly aggressive and intimidating towards a member of staff of the landlord. It was reported that the resident “put his hand” on the staff member’s arm. The resident disputed this version of events and claimed the staff member deliberately misrepresented what happened during the incident, and made a complaint about their conduct. It is worth noting it is not within the scope of this investigation to establish the disputed facts of the incident. Rather, this investigation will assess the landlord’s response to incident, concerns raised by the resident, and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the reported incident in September 2021, the landlord interviewed its staff member to ascertain their version of events. It also sought to interview the resident to get his perspective of what happened. This was appropriate in the circumstance and evidence the landlord took a balanced approach. The evidence shows the resident did not attend the interview on the date it was initially arranged. The landlord sought to rearrange the interview several times, which was supportive and evidence it wanted to give the resident a reasonable opportunity to give his input into its investigation into the matter.
It is evident the resident was of the view the member of staff had misrepresented what happened during the incident. The evidence shows the landlord did not dismiss his concerns. It sought to consider evidence from witnesses of the incident, which was appropriate in the circumstances. This indicates the landlord took a thorough and transparent approach to ascertain the facts before deciding what action to take.
The landlord interviewed a witness to the incident (another resident in the block), in December 2022. That this happened 2 months after the alleged incident was inappropriate. However, that it interviewed the witness is evidence it investigated the concerns in a transparent manner. It is noted that the witness explained they did not see the resident put his hand on the staff member, but also explained they were not present for the entirety of the incident.
The evidence indicates that, following its investigation into the incident, the landlord decided to issue an ABA and warning letter. This was in relation to the resident’s general conduct, and his alleged conduct during the incident. This was a proportionate response.
The landlord used its complaint responses to outline the actions it had taken in relation to the investigation of the incident, and the conduct of its staff member. Its stage 2 complaint response explained that the allegations against the resident had “neither been proven or disproven”, so it would not take further action in relation to the incident. The landlord apologised that it was not more proactive in seeking to speak to the resident’s witness, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord investigated the alleged incident with thoroughness and transparency. It did not dismiss the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff member, and gave him multiple opportunities to attend an interview and present his version of events. It apologised for the delay in interviewing the resident’s witness, which was appropriate. It decided not to take punitive action against the resident, and used its stage 2 complaint response to reassure him of this. That it included concerns about behaviour following the incident in the ABA it issued was proportionate, as it sought to remind the resident of expectations without taking punitive action for the alleged incident.

The resident’s reports of a mice infestation

The landlord has not supplied a pest control policy for this investigation, and signposted us to the information on its website. The website states that its pest control service are free for its tenants, and does not give indicative timeframes for when it will attend after an issue is reported.
When the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the mice infestation at his property, he raised a concern that the mice had damaged his personal possessions. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, it is not within the scope of this investigation to establish whether the landlord was liable for damage to the resident’s possessions. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is, however, the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted reasonably in relation to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation, in line with its policies and procedures.
The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about a mice infestation from 28 September 2021, as an internal shows the resident had reported concerns. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord took action at the time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. Indeed, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of December 2022, stated that it was aware the resident had reported the issue in September 2021, but was “unable to obtain reports” of actions it had taken at that time. This is evidence that its record keeping around the issue was poor.
The first entry in relation to pest control works, on repair log that the landlord supplied for this investigation, is for July 2022. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint responses refer to pest control works earlier than this date (March, April, and May 2022), a claim the resident has not disputed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord likely did pest control works earlier than July 2022. That the landlord has not supplied records of these visits is a shortcoming in its record keeping, and we have not been able to verify the works that took place.
The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not complete any pest control work until early 2022, which was several months after it was on notice about this issue. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by this delay, as he was waiting an unreasonable time before the landlord took appropriate action in relation to his concerns.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of July 2022, outlined the actions it had taken in relation to the infestation (laying traps in early 2022). It also explained that it had completed a “blitz clean” of the property in June 2022. Again, this clean is not present within the repair log provided, which is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. It is noted that the resident has not disputed the blitz clean took place. While we have not been able to verify the above actions, it is reasonable to conclude it did take such actions, given the resident has not disputed its version of events.
That the landlord sought to lay traps and complete a clean of the resident’s property once the mice had been removed was reasonable. That these actions took place several months after the landlord was first on notice amounts to an unreasonable delay which caused the resident an inconvenience.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to outline its expectations in relation to the resident keeping his property clean to prevent a recurrence of the infestation. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That it had also referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team is evidence it had given consideration to his circumstances, and how it could support him in maintaining his tenancy.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge the fact it had been on notice about the infestation, since September 2021. This was a shortcoming in its response, as it failed to appropriately assess its actions following an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident. The resident was evidently distressed about the mice in his property when he reported it. That it did not seek to show what it had learnt from the failings that caused the distress was inappropriate and caused an inconvenience.
That landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the above failing and apologised for the delay in progressing with the matter after it was first on notice. The landlord did not show the appropriate level of learning from its admitted failing, or explain what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was unreasonable, as it did not apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
The landlord offered a total of £300 in compensation for its handling of the mice infestation, and its complaint handling. It is unclear how much of the compensation was offered for its admitted failings in relation to the infestation issue. Considering this, a recommendation is set out below. Given the landlord admitted 2 failings in its complaint response, it is reasonable to conclude that it sought to offer £150 in compensation for each failing.
There was an unreasonable delay in attending to the mice infestation, and the landlord records around the issue were poor. It found no evidence it responded when the resident first put it on notice. The resident was distressed at the presence of mice in his property, and experienced a disappointment of the landlord taking no action. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response admitted a failing in its handling of the infestation issue, but did not show appropriate learning. As such we have determined that the landlord’s offer of £150 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of orders are made below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days, and stage 2 complaints also within 20 working days.
The resident first made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues in an email on 13 August 2021. In the email he specifically stated he wanted the landlord to open a formal complaint. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord opened a formal complaint investigation at the time. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused the resident an inconvenience.
The resident contacted this Service in May 2022 to get assistance in opening a complaint, and explained that he had tried to raise complaints with the landlord before, but had not had a response. The evidence shows the landlord conducted an unfair and hard to access complaints procedure for the resident. He was cost further time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from this Service in order to get the landlord to open a complaint investigation into his concerns.
After the landlord opened its stage 1 investigation, in June 2022, it wrote to the resident to inform him that its complaint response would be delayed, and apologised. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about when it hoped to respond. It also apologised for the delay when it issued its response, in July 2022, which was appropriate.
The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response 47 working days after we asked in to open a complaint investigation. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident was inconvenienced by the delay and experienced a protracted and hard to access complaint procedure. That the landlord did not make a on offer of redress in its stage 1 response was inappropriate. This is evidence it did not apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right. It is also noted that the landlord’s procedure is not compliant with the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2022 to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. This was another failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, and further evidence it operated an unfair and hard to access complaints procedure. The resident was inconvenienced by this. He was also cost further time and trouble, as he needed to seek further assistance from this Service in October 2022 to get the landlord to open a stage 2 investigation.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2022, which was 95 working days after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, and a further failing in its complaint handling. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay. As outlined above, we have made a reasonable conclusion that it offered £150 for the delay.
The stage 2 complaint response did not show an appropriate level of learning about the complaint handling delays and what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. It also failed to acknowledge that the landlord did not give a substantive response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of ASB for nearly a year after her first complained. As such, the £150 it offered did not fully put things right for the resident, and an appropriate series of orders are set out below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of allegations of ASB made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the investigation into an alleged incident between the resident and a member of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £625 in compensation made up of:
  1. The £300 it offered for its handling of the mice infestation and complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
  2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
  4. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Considering the failings identified in this report, instruct its staff:
  1. Responsible for overseeing repairs, to complete our E learning on Knowledge and Information Management.
  2. Responsible for investigating complaints, to complete our E learning on Dispute Resolution.

Recommendations

It is recommended that when making offers of compensation, the landlord gives the resident a breakdown of how it has calculated the amount for each admitted failing. This will help the resident understand how it has calculated the compensation, and improve transparency.