London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218385

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repair to the shower seat in her adapted bathroom.
2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative and a member of its staff.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 11 February 2019. The property is a second floor, 2 bedroom, flat. The landlord’s records confirm that it had been aware of the resident’s various disabilities since March 2019.
During the complaints process the resident reported that her daughter had injured herselfwhilst cleaning the rust that had been falling from the shower seat. The landlord noted that an incident form had been completed.
It is beyond the remit and authority of the Ombudsman to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and any subsequent personal injury to the resident’s daughter. If the resident considers that this was the case then she may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury insurance claim or pursue a claim through the courts.

Summary of events

On 27 July 2022, the resident reported a repair to the shower seat in her adapted bathroom. The landlord raised a repair the same day, noting that resident was vulnerable. This job was recorded as completed the same day. A second job was also raised on 27 July 2022 to ‘measure up the shower seat. This was recorded as being cancelled.
Internal landlord emails of 15 August 2022 noted that follow on works were needed. It asked that the operative that had attended and measured the shower seat be chased and if the materials had been ordered for this to be booked in. The landlord noted that the resident was disabled and therefore this needed to be treated as a priority.
A further job was raised on 9 September 2022 to again measure the shower seat, it was noted that the operative would need to order materials during the day. This job was recorded as being completed on 13 September 2022
On 15 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the repair of her shower seat and the conduct of the operative that had attended. In her complaint the resident said:
1. In early August she had an appointment in which someone came and measured the shower seat so a new one could be ordered. She was told the next appointment would be to fit the seat and an appointment was booked for the morning of 12 September 2022.
2. On the 12 September 2022 she received a text advising that the time of the appointment had been changed to PM. She called customer services and was advised that the repair would be completed at that appointment.
3. The operative that attended refused her offer of shoe covers, despite her advising them that she had a medical condition. They also said that they were only there to measure, and when she told them the seat had already been measured they said they did not know anything about that.
4. The operative proceeded to question the size of the shower seat, saying that it was too big in comparison to her body size, despite her telling them it was recommended by an occupational therapist. The resident said that the operative also laughed about this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 September 2022 and asked that she allow 10 working days for her complaint to be fully investigated.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2022 to chase its response, stating that it had been more than 10 working days since her complaint had been acknowledged.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it:
1. Referred to the resident’s complaint, made on 15 September 2022 regarding the operatives conduct who attended her property on the 12 September 2022.
2. Acknowledged the resident’s following correspondence in which she said that she was unhappy with the member of the landlord’s staff that she had spoken to that day.
3. Explained that the member of staff she had spoken to was trying to confirm the description of the operative that had attended her property on 12 September 2022, as they were unable to see that anyone had attended. The landlord noted that the resident was not willing to give that information.
4. Said that the last visit it had recorded was on 4 August 2022 where the operative had taken measurements for the adapted shower seat. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had said that no one had attended on that day, however it had tracker confirmation of this.
5. Said that the member of staff had offered to order the shower seat and get it booked in, which the resident declined.
6. Apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £40 compensation. This was made up of £20 for the failure to acknowledge her complaint within 24 hours and £20 for its failure to respond within 10 working days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2022 to escalate her complaint in which she said that:
1. The member of staff she had spoken to did not dispute that someone attended her property on 12 September, what they disputed was the purpose of the visit.
2. She refused to give a description because her description would not help the landlord fix its system. The landlord should know who attended her property. That was not its responsibility not hers.
3. Her daughter specifically told the member of staff to book the repair. The resident asked why she would decline a repair she raised in the first place.
4. She would like to the member of staff added to her complaint as what they had said was completely inaccurate and there were a lot of discrepancies.
On 28 October 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an acknowledgement of her escalation request. The same day the landlord advised that the complaint had been escalated on 25 October 2022 and had been assigned.
On 6 December 2022, this Service contacted the landlord to chase its stage 2 response, referring to the resident’s escalation request of 25 October 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 December 2022 to say that it would try and find the call related to the resident complaint about the member of staff. The landlord explained that this depended on whether they had called the resident on the internal phone system or their mobile. If it were on their mobile it would not have a recording.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had arranged for another contractor to attend, the following day, to replace the shower seat. The landlord said that it had noted that the operative was to wear PPE. It went on to say that:
1. It was trying to get the work completed in one day, the contractor was aware of the measurements needed, but was sorry if they could not get the part.
2. It understood that the resident had waited a very long time for this repair and that it would much appreciate the resident accommodating the contractor.
3. It had asked that the booking did not get cancelled unless there was an emergency in the area.
The resident responded the same day to say that she would be available for the appointment the following day and asked that the landlord liaise with her in future to arrange a suitable time and date as she had to attend regular appointments at the hospital. The resident said that she would email the landlord an update once the contractor had attended and the works completed.
On 9 December 2022:
1. The resident emailed the landlord to say that she had just received a call from the repairs team cancelling the appointment. The resident said that she was told that this was due to the operative being unwell and that the appointment had been rescheduled for 12 December 2022. The resident also asked the landlord to confirm what the purpose of the visit stating that ‘‘if they do not have the part, i.e. the shower seat, then the appointment will be meaningless’’.
2. The landlord emailed the resident to say that it was sorry that the appointment had been cancelled, particularly as it had asked for it not to be. The landlord also said that it was also sorry that there was no other contractor available to complete the works. It also advised that contractor had the measurements of the shower seat, but it depended on whether they could get that model on the day. As the parts were not kept in stock, they may have to source the seat.
3. In an internal email, the landlord asked the contractor that the resident’s appointment not be cancelled again, saying that it was working hard to get this ‘‘urgent’’ complaint resolved.
On 12 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was ‘’massively disappointed’’ that once again measurements of the shower seat had to be taken again that morning. The resident went on to explain that:
1. The operative had said that he needed to measure the seat before going to purchase it, and that he would be back to fix the seat.
2. This was the fourth time the seat has been measured and that this had caused ‘’a massive inconvenience and disappointment’’.
3. She had ‘‘several physical debilitating and chronic medical conditions and having to deal with this has exacerbated (her) symptoms’’.
The landlord issued its stage 2, and final response on 13 December 2022 in which it:
1. Apologised that it had taken some time to resolve her complaint.
2. Recognised the resident’s medical conditions and vulnerabilities and acknowledged that she had referred to this having been a stressful process which had impacted her health.
3. Provided a timeline of the repair to the shower seat from when it was first reported on 27 July 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the repair was not followed up and that this had been reactivated and a Customer Liaison Officer would continue to monitor the works to completion.
4. Acknowledged that the missed appointments and the incorrect tradesmen attending must have been inconvenient and distressing bearing in mind the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord said that it ‘‘totally’’ agreed with the resident that the contractors had the measurements of her shower seat, photos, direction from their team leader etc, and that the part should have been ordered much quicker and the replacement completed.
5. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the contractor who attended on 12 September 2022 and would not wear foot coverings, the landlord provided the resident with advice about what action she could take if this happened in the future. It then went on to say that if she would like it to make a formal complaint about the contractor to let it know.
6. The landlord went on to say that all its employees are asked to respect resident’s homes and their wishes and asked that, when the resident raises a repair, she asks that a note be added to that repair. The landlord also said that it had added for the contractor to wear PPE, or foot coverings etc, to the order for the completion of the shower seat repair.
7. Acknowledged that the resident’s complaint should have been acknowledged within 24hours and responded to within 10 days.
8. Acknowledged that the resident had to chase the stage 1 complaint on several occasions, its handling of the complaint was not consistent, with extended periods of time where the resident had had no communication. The landlord said that this was an unacceptable length of time to await a response.
9. Acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response. Explaining that due to a backlog the case was not allocated until 6 December 2022.
10. Offered the resident a total of £630 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300.00 for her time and effort, the inconvenience, and the distress this may have caused her.
  2. £150.00 for her right to repair.
  3. £80.00 for the missed appointments and duplicate visits by contractors.
  4. £100.00 for the late acknowledgement and delays in its complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2.
On 14 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was satisfied with the outcome, that she accepted the £630 compensation and that overall it had ‘’thoroughly investigated the issue’’. The resident went on to note that in its final response it had acknowledged that the repair had been cancelled and not, as it had previously said, that she had not wanted the repair to be carried out. The resident also said that she appreciated the landlord putting a note on the system regarding the need for PPE.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord chased the contractor for the replacement shower seat. The landlord also emailed the resident to advise that it had chased this again. The landlord said they would continue to chase this up and monitor it until the shower seat was fitted.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for the replacement shower seat through December 2022 and January 2023.
On 4 January 2023, the resident received an email from the landlord’s Team Maintenance Manager, as advised in the landlord’s final response. The Team Maintenance Manager said that:
1. He was sorry to learn that the resident felt that the member of staff had not conducted themselves in a conducive manner.
2. That he had read the case notes and felt that the member of staff had done their utmost to get a resolution to the resident’s enquiry and that the work was cancelled due to an administrative error and through no fault of the staff member.
3. That they had all discussed the resident’s complaint case and lessons had been learnt.
On 8 February 2023, another job was raised which noted that this was an ‘‘urgent stage 2 complaint escalation – please do not cancel or change appointment, do job in one day as had had multiple visits and measurements’’.
The resident advised this service that the shower seat was replaced on 28 February 2023. In her correspondence with this service the resident said that the inconvenience of being left without a shower seat had caused her inconvenience ‘‘beyond measure’’ and had ‘’minimised (her) quality of life’’.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, agreements, policies and procedures.

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences). This obligation is confirmed in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours to make the area safe. For all non-emergency repairs it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment. These timescales are confirmed in the Home and Maintenance Responsibilities booklet on the landlord’s website.
2. It has developed a ‘‘clear’’ guide for all suppliers whether internally or externally sourced, to ensure that residents receive a reliable, safe service that offers and affords them respect. This includes treating residents in a way they want to be treated, showing that they care about the resident and are committed to helping and can be trusted to what they say they will do.
The landlord’s Vulnerable Resident’s Policy states that it will work with residents to identify where they may need support or where service adjustments might be required to ensure its services meet their needs. The Policy goes on to refer to Service adjustments as providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs. The landlord’s Service Adjustment Procedure (Reactive Repairs) is referred to but has not been seen by this service.
The landlord had a two stage complaints process. The policy states that:
1. It will make contact by the end of the next working day after the complaint has been made and that, overall, the process to log and acknowledge a complaint will take no longer than 5 working days.
2. The response timescale for the first stage being 10 working days and 20 working days at the second stage. The policy states that if the landlord is not able comply with these timescales, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. It will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient as it recognises the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer.
2. The Right to Repair Scheme applies to secure tenants and that, at its discretion, it may use the Right to Repair scheme for other tenures. The policy goes to explain that this is calculated at £10 plus an additional £2 per household capped at £50 although it will not cap the amount but pay for the total duration of the loss.
3. It will provide fixed awards in the following circumstances:
  1. £10 – Failure to respond to a query within 10 working days where it is identified as part of a complaint investigation.
  2. £20 – Failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice – this could be by its staff or contractors working on its behalf.
4. It will also consider offering:
  1. Compensation for loss of facilities and amenities.
  2. Discretionary compensation to acknowledge any distress and convenience experienced as well as any time and effort made by the resident to put the issue right.
  3. Compensation for the impact of any failures in its complaint handling and where has not complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

The resident’s reports of repair to the shower seat in her adapted bathroom.

The landlord’s responsibility for the repair of the resident’s shower seat is not disputed.
Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
In this case, the resident was known by the landlord to be vulnerable and to have an adapted shower installed in her property, following the recommendation of an occupational therapist. It would therefore have been expected to have recognised the urgency of the repair and, in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy, to have made appropriate adjustments to ensure its services met the resident’s needs.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord recognised and frequently referred to the vulnerability of the resident and the urgency of this repair, ultimately it failed to ensure that the repair was completed within a reasonable amount of time.
As early as July 2022, the landlord had accepted that the shower seat needed replacing and raised a job for a replacement to be measured. However the shower seat was then not ordered until sometime in December 2022, some 5 months later. The Ombudsman recognises that repairs may be delayed on occasion, such as when specialist parts or equipment are required. However, in this case, as the shower seat was not ordered until approximately 5 months after the landlord had been put on notice of its need of replacement, this does not provide a reasonable explanation for the excessive delay in this case.
In addition, during this time the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord to chase the repair and had multiple visits to her property which, on each occasion, resulted only in further measurements being taken. The resident was also repeatedly assured that the seat had been ordered, only to then be advised that that was not the case, and had appointments made and then cancelled.
All of these failings were acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, for which it apologised to the resident. It acknowledged that there had been missed appointments, that the incorrect operatives had attended, and that the shower seat should have been ordered, and the replacement completed, much earlier.
The landlord offered the resident £530 compensation for these acknowledged failures, made up of £300 for her time and effort, inconvenience and the distress, £150 for the delay in the repair itself and £80 for the missed appointments. It also said that the repair had been reactivated and that it would continue to monitor the repair to completion. At this point the resident said that she was satisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
Given the length of time the resident had already been waiting, that the landlord was aware of her known vulnerabilities and the assurances made by the landlord in its final response, it would be reasonable to expect that the replacement of the shower seat would be carried out as a matter of urgency following that response. This is especially so given that the landlord had assured the resident that it would continue to monitor the repair to completion. However, despite all the assurances made by the landlord in its final response, the shower seat was then not replaced until 28 February 2023, over 2 months after its final response of 13 December 2022 and some 6 months after it was first reported by the resident.
Given the failure of the landlord to carry out the actions it had agreed to in its final response within a reasonable period of time, and the additional upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made in this case. To make things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the additional delay, pay her the £530 previously offered, if this has not already been paid, and an additional £500. This brings the total payable for this element of her complaint to £1,030. The additional £500 being made up of £300 for the further delay and £200 for the unnecessary upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this delay.
In July 2023 this service issued a special report on the landlord in which recommendations were made for it to review the assurance section of its Repairs policy to ensure these can be measured and reported. The recommendations included that the landlord should be able to:
1. Analyse and report on its response to repair requests and complaints about repairs.
2. Ensure it is adapting its response to repair requests from vulnerable residents.
3. Quickly identify and address instances where it is not following its Repairs policy.
4. Provide regular updates to senior leadership and governance groups, including its Member Responsible for Complaints, on its repairs performance.
Given that these areas of improvement and learning are currently being monitored by this service as part of the special report, no further orders or recommendations will be made here in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative and a member of its staff.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to both a member of the landlord’s staff and a contractor’s operatives conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the actions of these individuals themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
For staff conduct complaints, including complaints about its contractors operatives, landlords would be expected to carry out an investigation. The landlord would also be expected to explain to the resident what its investigations entailed and what actions, if any, it intended to take as a result. In the case of complaints relating to staff conduct, the landlord’s complaints policy explains that whilst it would not disclose, for reasons of confidentiality, the outcome of those investigations, it would explain what its investigation involved.
In this case, whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the operative that attended her property on 12 September 2022 and said that it had asked that a note be added to the repair that the contractor should wear PPE, or foot coverings etc, due to her vulnerabilities, this did not go far enough.
This is because in its repairs policy the landlord states that it has developed a ‘‘clear’’ guide for all suppliers whether internally or externally sourced, to ensure that residents receive a reliable, safe service that offers and affords them respect. This includes treating residents in a way they want to be treated, showing that they care about the resident and are committed to helping and can be trusted to do what they say they will do.
As that was the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted its contractor to advise it of the resident’s concerns, to have reminded it of its obligations and to ask what steps it will take to ensure that its operatives complied with its guidance going forward. That it did not do so is a failure on its part.
It is also noted that in its final response the landlord told the resident that if she would like to make about formal complaint about the contractor to let it know. This is a somewhat confusing statement for the landlord to have made as it is evident that the resident had clearly made a formal complaint about its contractor’s operative, and for which it had provided a response.
With regards to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s member of staff. It is acknowledged that this was not made as part of the resident’s initial complaint. However, given the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident was not happy with the member of staff in question, it would have been reasonable it to have considered the resident’s ongoing concerns.
This is because, as part of her escalation request, the resident challenged accuracy of the information provided by the member of staff given in the landlord’s stage 1 response. The issues raised by the resident were that the member of staff had not disputed that someone had attended on 12 September 2022 but rather the purpose of the visit. The resident also challenged the member of staff’s position that she had declined the repair, asking why she would have done so when she had raised it in the first place.
Prior to the landlord’s final response, the landlord did take some appropriate action; saying that it would try and find the relevant call recording and explaining what the potential difficulties might be. However, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an update following this.
Further, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a response to this element of her complaint in its final response. Instead it said that the resident’s concerns about the member of staff was a separate complaint, which was clearly not the case, and that this would be responded to by its Team Maintenance Manager. In addition to this not being a reasonable response by the landlord, the response from the Team Maintenance Manager was then not sent to the resident until 4 January 2023, almost a month after the landlord’s final response. The response also failed to address the specific concerns raised by the resident. In addition, whilst the Team Maintenance Manager said that the resident’s complaint had been discussed and lessons learned, he did not say what those lessons were or what action was going to be taken as a result.
Overall, the above failures amount to maladministration by the landlord for which it has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation. The landlord has also been ordered to confirm to the resident and this service what lessons were learnt following the review the Team Maintenance Manager referred to in his email of 4 January 2023.

The associated complaint

On 15 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have logged and acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, no later than 22 September 2022. However, the acknowledgment was not sent until 26 September 2022.
The landlord should have then issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days. Given that the complaint was made on 15 September 2022, it would have been expected to provide that response by 29 September 2022. However, it did not do so until 25 October 2022, almost 1 month outside of the timescales given in its complaints policy.
As that was the case, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for both of these failures in it stage 1 response. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests an amount of £10 for each failure. In this case the landlord went beyond this suggested amount, offering the resident a total of £40 compensation, made up of £20 for each of the failures identified.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 October 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy it should have issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, no later than 21 November 2022. However, it did not do so until 13 December 2022, again almost 1 month outside of the timescales given in its complaints policy.
Again, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident to the delay in its stage 2 response, to offer the resident further compensation and to provide the resident with an explanation for the delays at both stages of the complaints process. The landlord increased the £40 offered in its stage 1 response to £100 to take into account the unreasonable delay in it providing its stage 2 response.
Having considered all the evidence, overall the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for its failures with regards to its complaint handling. This is because the landlord recognised and apologised for the unreasonable delay in it acknowledging the complaint and in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2. The landlord also offered the resident compensation for those failures that was both proportionate and in line with the amounts given in its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair to the shower seat in her adapted bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative and a member of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were excessive delays in the landlord replacing the resident’s shower seat, it not doing so until 6 months after it was first reported by the resident. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged this failure and offered the resident compensation for those failures including missed appointments, that the incorrect operatives had attended, and that the shower seat should have been ordered, and the replacement completed, much earlier. The resident was initially satisfied with the landlord’s response, however, despite the assurances given by the landlord in its final response it then failed to replace the shower seat for a further 2 months, resulting in further additional unnecessary upset, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the operative and arranged for a note be added to the repair for the operative to wear PPE, or foot coverings etc. However, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted its contractor to advise it of resident’s concerns, to have reminded it of its obligations and to ask what steps it will take to ensure that its operatives complied with its guidance going forward, which it did not do. With regards to the complaint about the landlord’s member of staff, the landlord did take some appropriate action; saying that it would try and find the call recording and explaining what the potential difficulties would be. However, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an update following this. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a response to this element of her complaint in its final response, arranging for a separate response to be sent to the resident which was delayed and which did not cover the actual concerns the resident had raised.
There were evident failures by the landlord in respect of its response at both stages of the complaints process. As all of these failures were acknowledged and apologised for, and as a proportionate amount of compensation offered, this Service is satisfied that the landlord has provided the resident with reasonable redress for its failures with regards to its complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is order to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,130 made up of:
  1. The £530 offered in its stage 2 response in relation to its acknowledged failures with regards to his handling of the repair to the shower seat, if this has not already been paid.
  2. An additional £500 for the unnecessary upset, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the ongoing delay in it replacing her shower seat following its final response to her complaint.
  3. £100 for its failings with regards to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative and a member of its staff.
2. To confirm to the resident and this service what lessons were learnt following the review the Team Maintenance Manager said had taken place in his email of 4 January 2023.
3. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

That the landlord pay the resident the £100 offered in its stage 2 response for its acknowledged complaint handling failures, if this has not already been paid. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.