London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221044

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 October 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak;
2. Complaint handling;
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She was assigned the tenancy through a mutual exchange in October 2015. The original tenancy began in 2011. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third–floor of a recently constructed block. The landlord’s property overview screenshot shows the weekly rent is £180.28
The Ombudsman has seen part of the original tenancy agreement. Appendix B shows the landlord will treat a leaking roof as an emergency/urgent repair. The landlord’s relevant repair policies, effective May 2018 and March 2021, details its standard tenancy terms.
These show the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property including walls, roofs and electrical fixtures. They also show the resident is responsible for minor repairs and redecoration. The 2021 document shows the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective November 2020, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. A further 10 working days was available at each stage providing the resident was kept informed. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show a new contractor took over the block’s development after its original builder went into administration. They also show the contractor identified a number of defects with the block’s roof. A guarantee certificate shows water proofing works were completed to the roof on 27 February 2019.
The property’s repair history shows a works order was raised on 19 December 2019 to address a leak. It said water was dripping from the living room ceiling when it rained. The order was marked “complete no action” the same day. The landlord’s tenancy notes suggest a related maintenance request was also raised on the same day.
Further tenancy notes show the corresponding maintenance request was eventually cancelled on 16 February 2020. The cancellation note said “OTHERS have just renewed the roof. They should return.” A prior note referenced the block’s new contractor. The cancellation note suggests little progress had been made in relation to the resident’s initial report.
The next relevant repair orders were dated 25 August 2020. The matching orders said water was dripping rapidly through the living room ceiling. Further, it was spreading quickly across the ceiling. The first order, assigned to the landlord’s own maintenance team, was marked cancelled. A second order was assigned to an external roofing contractor.
In an email on 10 September 2020, the roofing contractor told the landlord it was awaiting confirmation (from the landlord) that it could work on the block’s roofs. It said the new development contractor recently renewed them and the works would be under guarantee. Around a week later, the landlord’s internal correspondence said works to rectify latent roofing defects should be reported to the landlord’s Aftercare Team in the first instance.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 10 October 2020. She said, following water ingress into the property’s kitchen, bedroom and living room, the block’s roof had been replaced around a year ago. However, the leak was still ongoing because water was pouring through the living room ceiling when it rained. Further, the rainwater spread to the property’s bedroom. Her main points were:
1. The resident was trying to prevent damage to the carpet, flooring and ceiling using towels and buckets. The ceiling was already “extremely damaged and falling apart”. Water had previously flowed through the property’s electrical outlets. The resident was worried about electrical hazards.
2. Recently, the landlord twice inspected the property. It subsequently failed to update the resident or return her follow-up calls. It then failed to respond to a written complaint around 3 weeks ago. The resident was unwilling to live with the situation any longer. Other homes in the block were also affected.
We notified the landlord about the resident’s complaint on 14 October 2020. We said it should respond to her concerns under its complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaint records show it called her the same day to acknowledge the complaint. Corresponding call notes said she was advised to update the landlord if the situation deteriorated.
A further complaint note on 28 October 2020 said the landlord had spoken to the resident following its investigation. This was 10 working days after the Ombudsman’s notification. It said the leak started on “2/08” and the property had been inspected. Further, the landlord was awaiting confirmation from its Aftercare Team that the roof was under warranty. It also said the landlord had contacted the relevant teams to progress matters and the resident was happy with this resolution. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding stage 1 response letter.
Around 3 November 2020 the landlord notified the block’s development contractor. The contractor replied the next day. It asked for more information to allow a joint inspection to be arranged. The requested information included the date the leak began, supporting images, and details of the landlord’s response. No information was seen to show the landlord responded directly at this time.
The landlord’s correspondence suggests the following events occurred between 27 December 2020 and 4 January 2021 :
1. The landlord’s surveyor chased the matter internally. They said another home in the block was severely impacted by the same leak. Further, the landlord should inspect the block as soon as possible.
2. The block’s development contractor asked the landlord whether the affected properties had been made safe. It also asked whether the landlord had reviewed any possible points of water entry externally.
3. The landlord gave the development contractor additional information including images of the other affected home.
4. During internal correspondence, the landlord’s surveyor advised “no making safe can be done at present”. They said they had requested more information from the resident and a joint site visit (with the development contractor) was the best way forward.
At this point, there was a gap in the evidence until 16 May 2021. On this date the landlord again chased the matter internally. A reply 2 days later said the repairs were an internal issue which “DM” (assumed to be the landlord’s Direct Maintenance Team) were leading on. The resident subsequently chased the landlord on 24 May 2021. Call notes show she reported leaving towels and buckets out daily due to recent bad weather.
From the landlord’s correspondence, the following events occurred between 12 and 21 August 2021:
1. The landlord asked a colleague who was monitoring the resident’s case for handover details. This was on the basis the colleague was leaving the landlord’s service.
2. A family member chased the repairs on the resident’s behalf. They reported the landlord was failing to help or update the resident. Further, a next door neighbour had been decanted but the resident was left to handle the situation alone.
3. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and carried out some tests.
4. The surveyor reported their findings during 2 internal emails from 20 August 2021. They said the leak appeared to be coming from a flat above, which would be inspected within days.
In an update on 26 August 2021, the surveyor reported a wide spread issue may be causing the leak. They said, having visited 6 homes in the block, there appeared to be problem with standing water ingress on a “landscaped warm deck roof”. Further, there was water ingress into several homes on the fourth floor. They also said, before raising any remedial works, the matter should be handled as a latent defect through the landlord’s Capital Works Team. The surveyor noted internal repairs could become extensive without prompt action.
The landlord exchanged emails with its surveyor the next day. It said it was unable to approach the builder without additional information. On that basis, the surveyor should complete a defect form, which should be accompanied by supporting images of the problem. The surveyor subsequently confirmed they had submitted the relevant form. Further, they had images showing standing water on the deck and damage to the homes below.
In internal correspondence on 21 September 2021, the landlord said a works order had been raised for a contractor to complete a semi-intrusive inspection of the block’s new roof. This was to find the potential water entry points. Within days, the landlord said it had found the roof’s warranty document. The timeline shows this was around 21 months after the resident’s initial report in December 2019.
Little information was seen about events over the next few months. However, on 4 January 2022 the landlord reported its findings from a recent inspection. It said the resident was experiencing “serious water penetration” into the living room. Further, there were 2 buckets collecting the leaking water. The correspondence contained a brief action plan. The main points were:
1. Having inspected the block’s roof garden area, it was clear there were several gaps in the concrete slabs. This could be causing water ingress into the property during heavy rain.
2. The gaps should be made good and the concrete relayed where necessary. The property needed an asbestos survey before the works began. The landlord would continue to monitor the situation with its contractors.
3. The resident was promised her living room would be fully repaired following works to repair concrete slabs in the roof garden area. This was subject to the works resolving the leak.
There was another gap in the evidence at this point. However, the landlord’s complaint records from 23 June 2022 said the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. The call notes said she was “quite unhappy” and her belongings were being damaged by rainwater. They also said the resident declined an inspection.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 August 2022. It said it was sorry the property continued to be affected by water ingress following the previous roof replacement works. Further, its surveyor and contractor had been instructed to assess the roof and report back. The landlord said it would update the resident in due course. Its internal correspondence around this time shows the landlord was still trying to establish which department was responsible for the repairs.
Call notes show the resident spoke to the landlord on 1 November 2022. They said the ceiling was not bowing and the leak was not currently affecting the lighting. They show the resident was again advised to notify the landlord if the situation deteriorated. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day. It said a roofing contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment date.
The resident approached the Ombudsman again on 6 December 2022. She said the leak was ongoing despite numerous phone calls and several inspections. Further, contrary to the landlord’s recent letter, there had been no contact from the roofing contractor. Her main points were:
1. Water was now running down the wall onto a plug socket. On previous occasions, water had run down the bulb on the room’s main light fitting.
2. In addition to the ceiling and wall, water had damaged the resident’s carpet, sofa and numerous towels that were laid on a daily basis.
3. Since she was getting nowhere with the landlord, the resident needed urgent help. The leak had been ongoing for over 3 years.
Two days later, we forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord along with multiple undated images of the property. The resident’s images showed: a strip of peeling paint revealing water damaged ceiling plaster, water marked wall paper, and water marks surrounding a double plug socket. The Ombudsman has also seen a number of the resident’s videos. They included footage of water leaking into several buckets placed around a coffee table.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord issued the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement. The acknowledgement wording confirmed the Ombudsman’s intervention prompted the landlord’s escalation.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was around 7 months after the resident’s initial escalation request and around 27 working days after the Ombudsman’s second intervention. The landlord apologised for “a long” delay, which it attributed to a backlog. It acknowledged the leak was ongoing for a “substantial” period. It also recognised the resulting distress to the resident. The complaint was upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord was sorry its stage 1 response on 15 October 2020 was not sufficient to rectify the leak.
2. The landlord’s records showed one of the landlord’s contractors repaired the leak on 12 January 2023. It was pleased the situation was now rectified after a prolonged period.
3. The resident had chased her complaint several times. At times, the landlord’s communication did not reflect its desired standards. The landlord was sorry for any distress or inconvenience caused.
4. The resident was awarded a total of £500 in compensation comprising: £150 for the delay at stage 2, £100 for complaint handling and £250 for time, effort, distress and inconvenience. A cheque would be issued by post within 3 weeks.
From the landlord’s various records, including the property and block repair histories as well as the tenancy notes, the Ombudsman was unable to find any record of a repair completed on 12 January 2023. Further, the repair records show the contractor referenced in the landlord’s stage 2 response was listed as a refrigeration and air conditioning specialist. As mentioned, the parties’ case evidence did not include a stage 1 response letter.
The landlord’s records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 21 February and 14 March 2023:
1. Complaint notes said “full leak detection was needed around living room and roof garden…”. They also said the landlord should confirm which department was responsible for progressing the works.
2. The resident chased her compensation payment on 2 occasions.
3. The resident reported the leak was ongoing and the landlord’s outstanding compensation payment was no longer acceptable. Her 8 March 2023 email said she was previously willing to accept £500 even though this amount would not cover her costs, which included a replacement sofa and carpet, and redecoration expenses.
4. The landlord told the resident her cheque had been passed to its accounts team. With regards to the ongoing leak, it said she could raise a new complaint or contact the Ombudsman. The landlord’s cheque requisition form was dated the same day.
Tenancy notes from 22 August 2023 said there had been buckets in the resident’s living room for years. They also said there were 4 new leaks around the property and its hall and kitchen were now affected. A repair order to make safe water on the electrics in the kitchen and hallway was marked complete the same day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 September 2023. It said, having reviewed its stage 2 response following contact from the Ombudsman, it had decided to complete a more detailed review. It also said it would issue a further stage 2 response by 11 October 2023.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 2 October 2023. She said the leak was ongoing despite a recent inspection. She reiterated that she had chased the landlord on numerous occasions. However, she said, she was never updated afterwards. Further, her buckets had previously overflowed while she was out. Her main points were:
1. The resident did not recall receiving a written response at stage 1.
2. She had been given a verbal assurance that the landlord would consider her damaged personal belongings once the repairs were complete.
3. Overall, the resident was on the verge of giving up. She just wanted the leak fixed.
The landlord issued its updated stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. The resident’s complaint was upheld. The landlord apologised for the “unacceptable” service the resident received overall. Its response included a list of repair works based on a recent inspection, the landlord’s own timeline, a revised compensation offer, and a link to the landlord’s insurance claims process. The key points were:
1. An urgent appointment had been raised to reinstate the property’s disconnected lights and smoke alarm. An asbestos survey had also been arranged and a contractor would contact the resident in due course to schedule an appointment. Following this survey, the leak would be fully investigated. Once resolved, the landlord would repair the living room ceiling.
2. The landlord was unable to evidence the development contractor’s actions in the months after the resident’s October 2020 complaint. Subsequently, repairs were delayed by access issues related to a neighbouring home. Later, the landlord’s staff turnover caused further delays.
3. In September 2022, a leak detection contractor was unable to complete testing to the property since the resident was unavailable for a pre-arranged appointment (the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this from the tenancy notes or property and block repair histories). The landlord was unable to evidence any of its subsequent actions.
4. The landlord was overhauling its repair and complaint handling services. It had invested in additional staff and training. This was to improve the quality and responsiveness of its repair service, and promote efficiency, good communication and learning from outcomes.
5. The landlord appreciated these improvements were too late to impact the resident’s case. To recognise her distress and inconvenience, it awarded the her an additional £1975 in compensation. It comprised: £75 time and effort to resolve the complaint, £100 poor complaint handling, and £1800 distress and inconvenience.
6. This award was based on: the landlord’s failure to recognise the ongoing leak following its initial stage 2 response, incorrect information contained in this response and compensation of £50 per month for a period of 36 months (the timeline shows this calculation reflects a leak from October 2020 onwards).
7. Since damage to personal belongings was not covered by its complaints process, the resident should raise a claim through the landlord’s insurer. The landlord was aware it failed to provide the relevant details earlier in the timeline. Its additional compensation award reflected this failure.
8. The resident’s complaint would remain open at stage 1 while the landlord resolved the leak. This would allow the landlord to monitor the situation moving forwards. A cheque for the additional compensation would be issued within 6 weeks.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
The landlord’s October 2023 case review, including its additional compensation award, cannot fairly be considered part of its internal complaints procedure (ICP). While the additional award was both welcome and significant, it postdated the landlord’s final response by around 9 months. It also appears to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. As a result, this delay is evidence of complaint handling failures. It was noted the landlord did not attempt to review the case in March 2023 (when the resident confirmed the leak was ongoing).
Nevertheless, the case review was a useful benchmark. It showed the landlord’s current approach to the leak and demonstrated significant improvements in its complaint handling approach. For clarity, most of the below complaint handling and record keeping sections were written before the landlord issued its additional stage 2 response. When finalising our assessment, it was noted that, ultimately, the landlord broadly agreed with our below findings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak

In its case review, the landlord accepted it failed to repair the leak over a period of 36 months. In contrast, the tenancy agreement shows it will treat roof leaks as an urgent repair. The landlord’s relevant repairs policy details an applicable 24 hour timescale. The above comparison confirms the landlord’s response was both inappropriate and contrary to its legal repairing obligations.
In further contrast, the Ombudsman’s timeline suggests 46 months is a more accurate reflection of the leak’s duration. This calculation was based on the period from December 2019 to date. It was noted the resident said she was unwilling to live with the situation any longer in October 2020. Her comments suggest, at this point, the leak was already ongoing for some time.
The timeline shows, during the above identified 46 month period, the resident continually chased the landlord for updates. She also facilitated numerous inspections and raised valid safety concerns. The timeline suggests some of these concerns were ultimately borne out. For example, around August 2023 leaking water prompted the landlord to make the property’s electrics safe.
Given her efforts to progress matters, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s failure to coordinate, monitor, or follow up its leak response caused the resident considerable distress. The evidence shows the leak became more severe over time. For example, additional rooms were affected and, as the resident’s video evidence suggests, more buckets were needed to collect the rainwater.
The information seen suggests the leak was only active in heavy rain. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude the prospect of bad weather was worrying the resident. In other words, that the impact was not limited to just periods of rainfall. Further, since her living room (assumed to be her main space to relax) was initially affected, the resident had limited respite from the problem.
In addition, the timeline suggests the resident has been living with damaged personal items for a considerable period of time. This will be addressed further in the complaint handling section below. Overall, the situation was unfair and it resulted in a significant and prolonged impact to the resident. Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. As mentioned, this finding reflects the landlord’s failure to resolve matters during its ICP.
The timeline suggests the landlord ultimately awarded the resident a total of £2125 in related compensation (£250 + £1875, complaint handling compensation will be considered separately). The Ombudsman’s calculations suggest this was equivalent to around 8% of the rent paid over the landlord’s identified 36 month delay period. When applied to the correct 46 month timeframe, this level of compensation is broadly reasonable to address the resident’s loss of amenity. This was because there was no evidence to suggest the resident lost the use of any rooms.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. In line with our approach to compensation, our order will include a separate distress and inconvenience element to address these impacts separately.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it suggests the landlord failed to act on the resident’s initial complaint in September 2020. It shows the landlord subsequently failed to act on her escalation request in June 2022. Overall, it confirms the Ombudsman’s intervention was needed to progress her complaint at both stages. This was both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that contacting the Ombudsman caused the resident additional inconvenience.
Further, contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020, no information was seen to show the landlord issued the resident a written stage 1 response. Section 3.15 of the Code said, on completion of each complaint stage, landlords should provide written correspondence detailing the complaint outcome, and other key information including outstanding actions and escalation rights. It is reasonable to conclude the resident may have escalated her complaint earlier if she was aware of this option.
Given the above, the landlord’s failure to issue a formal response was inappropriate. In addition, there was little evidence to suggest the landlord attempted to follow up the repairs or compensate the resident at stage 1. While its stage 2 response was better, the timeline suggests it contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, no information was seen to show a stage 1 response was issued on 15 October 2020. There was also no evidence of any roofing or leak repairs being completed on or around 12 January 2023. Nor was the resident’s compensation issued within 3 weeks as outlined in the response.
Again, there was little evidence of any attempt to follow up the repairs at this stage. Similarly, although it acknowledged her prolonged period of distress, there was no evidence the landlord made any attempt to learn from the resident’s negative experience. For example, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have highlighted the case details to its management team. Further, the response failed to reference the resident’s damaged personal items. In contrast, her escalation request mentioned a sofa, carpet and numerous towels.
We forwarded the resident’s full request to the landlord on 8 December 2022. The information seen suggests the landlord also spoke to the resident around this time. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s failure to address this aspect of the complaint was inappropriate. It was also contrary to section 3.14 of the applicable Code, which said “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint…”. It is accepted the resident was given a verbal assurance around her damaged belongings. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude a written record of this commitment would have been more reassuring.
For clarity, where a resident alleges property damage occurred due to a landlord’s failure, a landlord can refer them to its insurer or deal with the claim through its ICP. Typically, the ICP route involves a landlord inspecting the damaged items. In this case, the evidence suggests the landlord effectively did neither until later in the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude insurance referrals may be time sensitive. On that basis, the landlord may ultimately need to resolve the matter through its ICP.
In summary, the above identified oversights, inaccuracies and quality issues suggest the landlord lacked appropriate levels of engagement or proactivity in relation to the resident’s complaint. The evidence suggests it was unable to influence the repair timeline through its complaints process. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was unlikely to resolve matters through its own ICP. Overall, the evidence points to maladministration in respect of this complaint point. It also shows the landlord’s offer of £250 in related compensation (awarded during ICP) was not sufficient to put things right.
In its case review, the landlord increased its total complaint handling compensation to £350. This was more proportionate, given what went wrong. Still, its additional stage 2 response failed to recognise that the resident had to involve the Ombudsman at both stages of its ICP. Nor did it reference the additional inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to issue a cheque within the timescale given in its initial stage 2 response. We will therefore increase the landlord’s related compensation to reflect the full extent of its failures.

The landlord’s record keeping

The evidence suggests multiple inspections occurred during the timeline. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has seen limited inspection records from the landlord. The information seen shows the landlord has not yet confirmed the cause of the leak. It is reasonable to conclude the overall number of inspections was directly related to its poor record keeping. Similarly, that improved record keeping should have prevented it from repeatedly asking the same questions around departmental responsibility.
In other words, the timeline suggests the landlord had difficulty referring to its previous inspection reports, prior events or agreed actions. For example, it was noted that no information was seen to show the results of the landlord’s January 2022 action plan. It was also noted the resident declined a further inspection in June 2022. It is reasonable to conclude, at this point, she lacked confidence that another inspection would progress matters.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicated that the landlord’s complaints processes were not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
In summary, the timeline suggests the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping hindered its overall response to the leak. It is reasonable to conclude it also added to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience. Given the above, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The timeline shows the landlord failed to repair the leak over a 46 month period. This was both inappropriate and contrary to its legal repairing obligations. The situation was unfair to the resident, who experienced a significant and prolonged impact.
Based on the above identified oversights, inaccuracies and quality issues, the landlord lacked appropriate levels of engagement or proactivity in relation to the resident’s complaint. Accordingly, it was unable to influence the overall repair timeline through its complaints process.
The timeline suggests the landlord had difficulty referring to its previous inspection reports, prior events or agreed actions. It is reasonable to conclude the overall number of inspections was directly related to its poor record keeping. The evidence suggests this hindered the landlord’s overall response to the leak.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to appoint a relevant member of its executive team to oversee the repairs until completion. Within 4 weeks it should provide the resident and the Ombudsman an action plan confirming both the source of the leak, and how it will be swifty addressed. The landlord should provide monthly updates to both parties until the repairs are complete.
The appointed executive to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report (these failings broadly match the findings in the landlord’s recent case review). The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant letter or call transcript within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,650 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,700 rent reimbursement for any loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s above identified delays and failures from December 2019 to date. This figure is an estimate only and is not intended to amount to an exact refund.
2. £500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s delays and failures during the above identified period.
3. £450 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling . The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid, from the £2,475 (£2125 + £350) it previously awarded, from the above grand total.
The appointed executive to review to review the repair issues highlighted in this report (the landlord is already working with the Ombudsman in relation to its complaint handling and record keeping). Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. This is with a view to preventing similar delays and failures, around the coordination of repairs involving latent defects, from reoccurring. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
In this case, the evidence shows other homes in the block were affected by the same leak. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should launch internal case reviews of any related complaints. Where impacted residents have not previously complained, they should be notified that this is an option. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. This evidence should include the number of impacted homes and details of the action taken for each home. For data protection reasons, it should not include the residents’ personal details.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.