London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202124688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124688

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 February 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 landlords handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of window repairs.
2. Reports of issues in the communal areas.
3. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident told the Ombudsman that he was having issues related to a previous complaint. Under paragraph 42(I) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise matters which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, the issues relating to the resident’s complaint about his boiler will not be considered in this investigation, as they have already been investigated by this Service in case 201804899.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1 bed flat on the third floor. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord is aware of the residents vulnerabilities.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 18 May 2020 the housing minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “as we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”

Summary of events

In October 2018 the resident reported repair issues with his living room window. The landlord’s records state it completed the repairs on 22 November 2018.
On 4 April 2019 the resident told the landlord about the outstanding issues with his living room window. He said someone came to inspect the window and he was told the seal had gone and he would need a new window. He said he was told he would be contacted with 48 hours but no one contacted him.
On 1 August 2019 the landlord told the resident that the planned works to his doors, windows and the external and communal decorations that were due in 2019/2020 would take place in 2020/2021. No evidence was provided to this Service to show these planned works were completed.
On 10 October 2019 the resident reported repairs to his windows and said the issues had been outstanding for a year. On 25 October 2019 he told the landlord that he had contacted his MP as he felt overwhelmed and ignored and that he had been treated with disregard.
On 12 November 2019 the resident’s MP asked the landlord to look into the disrepair to the resident’s living room window.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 November 2019, and instructed a surveyor to inspect the windows on 19 November 2019. It was agreed that the living room window was defective and needed remedial works, and the kitchen window was not operating properly and needed repairs. The surveyor said scaffolding may need to be erected for works to be carried out to the kitchen window and he would discuss this with a manager. The resident reported that during the previous works to his windows his laminate flooring, blind and kitchen units and worktops were damaged. The landlord said it would discuss this with a manager.
On 9 January 2020 the resident reported that the contractor had failed to attend the appointment booked for that day to look at the windows. The landlord responded the same day and said the operative attended 16 minutes after the allocated time slot. It stated that sometimes little delays should be expected, however, it agreed it attended late and offered the resident a £20 voucher. It said it would rebook the appointment and asked the resident what days and times were best for him.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to rebook the appointment. The resident said he did not want to rearrange the appointment as the kitchen window repairs could not be done until the other repairs were completed. He said this included painting and the living room window repairs. He said he was getting frustrated that no one was updating him about these works. The landlord’s internal records show that internal emails were sent, and it was stated that the only window requiring works was in the kitchen, the glazing in the living room window needed to be renewed but another team was dealing with this. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 February 2020 to rebook the appointment, however, the resident told it to cancel the job.
On 27 March 2020 the landlord told the resident that works to the windows were being suspended due to COVID-19.
On 5 May 2020 the landlord’s records state that the window repair was completed. No evidence was provided to this Service to show the window was repaired on this date.
On 30 October 2020 the resident made a formal complaint as he had not heard anything about the window repairs. He said he wanted compensation for the delay. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 November 2020. The landlord attempted to contact the resident twice in November 2020 to discuss the complaint, but the resident did not answer.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and stated:
1. The resident told the landlord that the living room window needed resealing on 15 November 2018. It attended on 22 November 2018 and reported that the top sash window had minor condensation, but it did not need replacing.
2. A repair was raised to overhaul the kitchen window on 25 November 2019 after an inspection by a building surveyor. An appointment was scheduled for 8 January 2020 however it attended late and a £20 voucher was issued. Another appointment was made, but this was put on hold due to COVID-19. It said it had arranged a new appointment for 23 November 2020.
3. It apologised for the trouble caused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2020 and said he was unhappy with its stage 1 response due to the length of time it had taken to address the window repairs and that he was not offered compensation for this.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 December 2020 and apologised for the delay in responding. It said this was due to annual leave. It stated it would not offer compensation for the window repairs as an interim compensation policy was introduced on 1 April 2020 which paused all discretionary compensation payments for complaints raised after 1 April 2020. The resident responded the same day and said he needed the issues to be resolved as he couldn’t take any more stress as it was impacting his health.
From August 2021 to October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord several times for an update on his complaint and the window repairs.
The landlord’s records show that a job was raised for works to the communal front door and skirting board by the front door on 21 October 2022. Its records state the works were completed on 22 October 2022.
On 28 October 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the window repairs. The landlord told the resident that its records state the complaint and repairs were resolved. The resident said this was incorrect. The landlord re-opened the complaint. The resident also reported that the communal door was not working correctly, the landlord said it would inspect this the following day. No evidence was given to this Service that showed this inspection went ahead.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the window repairs on 9 February 2022. The landlord said they were on order and had not yet arrived.
This Service contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to ask it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint by 4 March 2022.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay and said it would respond by 4 March 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2022 and said the kitchen window repairs were completed, however, the wrong size window was ordered for the living room. The landlord contacted the resident the same day, it discussed the outstanding works which included:
1. Replacement pigeon spikes.
2. Snagging works not completed to communal areas.
3. Damp in the communal entrance.
4. Kitchen and bedroom window were cracked due to scaffolding.
5. Lights in communal area do not work.
6. Double glazing has blown, this was due to be completed when scaffolding was up, but scaffolding has been removed and works have not been completed.
The resident also told the landlord he was suffering from anxiety and depression, the landlord said it would send him some information on organisations that could help him and would ask a manager to reach out to the resident.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaints response. In its response it stated:
1. It had instructed its contractors to inspect the issues reported by the resident on 2 March 2022 and asked them to resolve these immediately.
2. The wrong window was ordered for the living room, it said a new window had been ordered but it could take 2-3 weeks, and the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
3. It had raised a case with its neighbourhood team to contact the resident about his health and wellbeing. It also gave a list of organisations the resident could contact for support.
4. It apologised as it said the resident’s enquiries and repairs could have been managed more effectively and for the delay in its responses.
5. Offered £420 compensation which included:
  1. £200 for inconvenience and distress
  2. £100 for time and effort
  3. £100 for its late stage 2 complaint response
  4. £20 for a failed appointment
6. Stated any compensation offered would offset any arrears.
7. Referred the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord’s records state it contacted the resident on 3 October 2022 to discuss his health and wellbeing, the resident said he was receiving help and he appreciated the call but asked the landlord to close the case.
The evidence shows the living room window repairs were completed in December 2022.
The landlord’s records show the communal lighting was fixed on 20 March 2022. The communal front door light and switches were repaired on 28 March 2023.
The landlord contractor investigated the resident’s reports of another blown window pane to the living room window in May 2023. The landlord’s records state it replaced the living room window on 4 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident first reported issues relating to this complaint in October 2018. The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. However, the Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s response from October 2018 until the final complaint response on 4 March 2022.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of his reports of repairs had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping the common entrance halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other common parts in reasonable repair and to keep the lighting of these areas in working order. It states the decoration of common parts will be carried out every 5 years.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its target response time is 24 hours for emergency repairs, and it will aim to complete routine day to day repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will not undertake repairs to blown double glazing units expect where it cannot be seen through. It states it will deal with pigeons by repairing existing deterrents or assessing the need for new ones.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone will not suffice and the service loss or failure has had an impact on the resident. It states it will compensate for any distress and inconvenience and/or time and effort if it was appropriate to do so. It also states residents can be compensated for loss of communal services and facilities that are not resolved within given timeframes and its service level agreements.
The landlord’s interim compensation policy dated 1 April 2020 states from this date it will only make statutory compensation payments, which is compensation it was legally obliged to pay when it failed to meet the required service standards. Complaints received after 1 April 2020 but related to a service failure before that date would be considered on a case by case basis and would be eligible for discretionary compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the of the resident’s reports of window repairs

The resident first reported his living room window required repairs in October 2018. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repairs to the living room window in December 2022, this was 4 years later. The resident first reported issues with the kitchen window in November 2019. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repairs to the kitchen window on 2 March 2022, this was 2 years and 4 months later. Although it is acknowledged that some of the delays were due to COVID-19 and events outside the landlord’s control. These were significant and unreasonable delays.
No evidence was provided to this Service to show the landlord wrote to the resident after it initially inspected the windows in November 2018 to tell him what steps it would take to resolve the issues reported, if there were any actions outstanding and the timescales for further works. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will not carry out repairs to blown double glazing units except where it cannot be seen through. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord told the resident this. In its stage 1 complaint response it said its contractor reported that the top sash window had minor condensation but did not need replacing, this was 1 year after the inspection. The landlord’s poor communication led the resident to continuously report the same issue and chase updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by not managing the resident’s expectations and keeping him up to date. This caused the resident significant distress.
The resident continued to report issues with his windows in April 2019 and October 2019. The landlord instructed a surveyor to inspect the windows on 19 November 2019. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to instruct a surveyor, this was 158 days after the resident reported further issues with his windows. This was an inappropriate delay and this Service notes the landlord responded to the residents reports of repairs after the local MP intervened.
During the inspection in November 2019 the resident reported that when the previous works were carried out to the windows the contractor caused damaged to his internal decoration. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord spoke to a manager about this as it stated it would. The landlord acted unreasonably by not investigating these issues and communicating a resolution to the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractors to carry out the repairs in January 2020. The contractor attended the appointment late, which resulted in there being no access. The landlord acted appropriately by recognising this failing and offering the resident compensation. It also set the resident’s expectations that sometimes there will be small delays and to avoid further issues it asked the resident to provide the best times for future appointments. This showed the landlord was listening and looking at the resident’s individual circumstances when managing repairs.
The evidence shows poor communication between the landlord’s internal departments. The stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge that a surveyor attended the property in November 2019 and said the living room window was defective and needed remedial works. The landlord records show that in January 2020 the repairs team noted that the kitchen window was the only repair outstanding as another project team was dealing with the living room window. The resident became frustrated as he felt the landlord was ignoring his reports about the living room window which led him to ask the landlord to cancel the job in February 2020. The relationship between the landlord and the resident had clearly broken down at this point, no evidence has been provided to this Service to show the landlord tried to rectify the situation.
It is recognised that delays between March 2020 and June 2020 would have been due to the Government restrictions that had been imposed on the landlord during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic would have impacted the landlord’s services and it would have needed time for its operations to recover. This Service would not have expected to see the repairs completed as soon as the restrictions were lifted in May 2020 but it would have expected to see the landlord contact the resident to update him with estimated timescales for repairs. It wasn’t until the resident raised a complaint in October 2020 that the landlord arranged an appointment to investigate the repairs in November 2020. The landlord acted unreasonably by not updating the resident. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and was not customer focused.
There is no evidence that anyone in the organisation took overall control of resolving the window repairs. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaints response it gave an appointment date for the works to be carried out, however, no evidence was provided to this Service that this appointment went ahead. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different teams, such as the repairs and complaints teams. This will ensure that all parties have access to accurate and current information which can be passed to and from the resident and will avoid unnecessary delays. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to adhere to commitments it had promised the resident.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is essential if the landlord is to fulfil its statutory repair obligations. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The evidence suggests repair orders for the windows were repeatedly marked as complete when only an inspection had taken place or the works were not completed. On 20 October 2021 the resident chased the window repairs and was told the complaint issues raised were showing as resolved. The failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management caused significant delays in reports of repairs being picked up and the works being carried out. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the reports of repairs. The landlord acted appropriately by communicating with the resident about his vulnerabilities and it considered and communicated all the options available to the resident. However, this was only considered as part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This Service would have expected the landlord to have communicated with the resident about any risks and complete a risk assessment when the repairs were first reported. The landlord acted unreasonably by not doing this.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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.
In this case the landlord took too long to respond to the landlord’s reports of window repairs, it failed to complete a risk assessment, there were significant delays in works being completed, its communication was poor and its record keeping failed to support an effective resolution to the issues raised. The landlord recognised that the repairs should have been managed more effectively, apologised for the delays and offered the resident £300 compensation for his overall inconvenience and distress and time and effort. The landlord took steps to put things right and completed the window repairs, and the evidence shows the landlord has learnt from this case as further reports of window repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe. However, this Service feels the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and the landlord did not demonstrate it understood the detriment caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the of the resident’s reports of issues in the communal areas

The investigation of this part of the resident’s complaint has been impacted by the landlord’s poor-quality records. The landlord’s repair logs and records of communication do not make it clear when the resident first reported the issues raised in the stage 2 complaint response, which included the new pigeon deterrents being ineffective, communal lightening was not working, and the damp near the communal front door.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 and the resident raised the above outstanding issues. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that these issues had resulted from planned works to the building, and said it had asked its contractor to inspect and resolve them immediately. The landlord’s records show its contractor fixed the communal lighting in March 2022. The landlord acted reasonably by resolving this issue within a reasonable time. However, no evidence was provided to this service to show the landlord wrote to the resident to update him and to check the issues he raised had been resolved satisfactorily.
No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of ineffective pigeon spikes or the damp in the communal front entrance prior to the resident raising a formal complaint. The resident said that the new design of pigeon deterrents were not effective and pigeons were entering both his flat and the communal area. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will deal with pigeons by repairing existing deterrents or assessing the need for new ones. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep the common entrance halls in reasonable repair. We would have expected the landlord to investigate these issue within a reasonable timescale, communicate its findings to the resident and discuss any proposed works. The landlord acting inappropriately by failing to adhere to commitments it had promised and communicate effectively with the resident.
The resident has told this Service that at the time of this investigation report the issues with the pigeon deterrents and damp in the communal entrance were still outstanding. When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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.
In this case the landlord’s communication and record keeping was poor. The landlord took some steps to put things right as it fixed the communal lighting, however, it failed to offer any suitable redress such as an apology or compensation for the delay in resolving the issues. There is no evidence the landlord has learnt from this case as the issue with the pigeon deterrents and damp and mould in the communal area remain outstanding at the date of this investigation report.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues in the communal areas.

The landlord’s handling of the of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2019 and said he was contacting his MP as he felt ignored and that he had been treated with disregard. This was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction about the lack of action from the landlord in relation to the reported repairs. The landlord acted inappropriately by not accepting this as a formal complaint.
The resident submitted a complaint on 30 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged this complaint within its 5 working day target response time. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 November 2020, this was within the landlord’s target response time of 10 working days.
The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by attempting to contact the resident by phone and email to discuss his complaint. This showed the landlord was taking steps to understand the issues being raised and taking steps to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the trouble caused, however, it failed to recognise its lack of communication, poor record keeping and that it did not effectively manage the resident’s reports of repairs. Although it attempted to put things right by arranging an appointment to look at the kitchen window repairs, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about the living room window. The landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint, it did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised and it failed to fully consider the impact on the resident.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s request for compensation for the window repairs in its stage 1 response. When the resident told the landlord this, it said its interim compensation policy introduced on 1 April 2020 paused all discretionary compensation payments for complaints raised after 1 April 2020. The landlord failed to fully investigate this matter as it did not recognise the resident had made a complaint before this date. The interim complaints policy also stated that complaints received after 1 April 2020 but related to a service failure before that date would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be eligible for discretionary compensation. The landlord acted inappropriately by not being proactive and customer focused.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 March 2022. This was 65 working days after the resident stated he was unhappy with the stage 1 response, which was outside its 20 working day target response time. This was an inappropriate delay.
The landlord failed to action the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. This led to the resident contacting the Ombudsman. It was after intervention from the Ombudsman that the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The lack of communication from the landlord caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he continued to chase the landlord for a response.
The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss his complaint before it issued its stage 2 response. However, the landlord included new issues the resident raised about the communal areas into the resident’s existing complaint instead of accepting a new complaint for these issues. This prevented the resident from having the opportunity to escalate his complaint about these new issues. The landlord acted inappropriately by not accepting a new complaint for these issues.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to accept the resident’s initial complaint and it failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response without intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated, it did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint, and it did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not dispute its complaint handling failures. It apologised to the resident and offered the resident an award of £100 for its late stage 2 complaint response. It is the view of this Service that the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. It did not go far enough to demonstrate that it understood the detriment caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A member of the senior leadership team must do this.
2. pay the resident £1150 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation awarded in its stage 2 response. This compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £800 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues in the communal areas.
  3. £250 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must write to this Service and the resident setting out:
1. The issues raised by the resident about the communal areas and exterior of the building. The landlord should either confirm that it has affected a lasting resolution to these issues, specifying what that resolution was and when it was affected, or set out how and when it will diagnose the issues and affect a solution.
2. The issues raised by the resident in regard to the damage caused to his internal decoration and fixtures and fittings when the window repairs were carried out. The landlord should consider whether the resident could make a claim through its insurance and if so it should advise the resident how to do this.