London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202226320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226320

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of delays completing repairs to the boiler.
2. Response to the request to cancel the service charge arrears.
3. Handling of the associated complaint and processing of the compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the two-bedroom, fourth floor flat since February 2011. The resident has informed the landlord he lives with his son but has also stated he has a baby living with him.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman is aware of historical issues and complaints reported by the resident. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Following a complaint made in January 2021, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of any further complaints until September 2022. This report will focus on the events between the last repair reported prior to the complaint (of September 2022) being made and the landlord’s final complaint response letter (in April 2023).
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint that concerns the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This report will not determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. It will however focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to visit the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) website for advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Summary of events

Prior to the resident’s complaint in September 2022, the last report of no heating or hot water was made to the landlord on 24 January 2022. The contractor attempted contact with the resident the same day but was unsuccessful.
The resident contacted the contractor on 25 January 2022, and an appointment was made for 28 January 2022. The engineer secured a loose bedroom radiator and swapped the valves. He noted the heating isolation valve handles did not open fully and this restricted the flow to the radiators. The handles were removed to open the valves, and this left the radiators hot. The engineer noted the pressure reducing valve (PRV) was not holding the pressure as it should. Although it was working, he recommended this was replaced before it failed completely. The notes confirm the PRV was ordered.
On 2 February 2022, the contractor contacted the resident to arrange the replacement of the PRV. The resident contacted the contractor on 4 February 2022 and the appointment was confirmed for 10 February 2022.
An engineer attended on 10 February 2022; however, it was established the incorrect PRV had been received. The resident asked if heaters could be provided, and these were delivered by the contractor. A new PRV was ordered.
On 30 March 2022, the contractor agreed to fit the new PRV on 1 April 2022.
When an engineer attended on 1 April 2022, the pressure on the boiler was below 1 bar. The expansion vessel was checked and recharged. The pressure was topped up and was holding 1.5 bars. The air was vented from the radiators which left all the radiators piping hot. The hot water was tested, and no problems were found. The contractor has not confirmed if the PRV was fitted.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 28 September 2022. He said:
1. The boiler had been problematic since moving in, and the problems continued. He had pleaded with the landlord to replace it.
2. The flat had no heating or hot water throughout 2018. Although several engineers attended, the problem was not resolved. The resident bought electric heaters, but his bills increased because of this.
3. During Covid, he tried to report the problems, but the phone kept cutting him off.
4. Appointments were made, but then not attended. This affected his work as he had to ask permission for days off. As he was only paid when he attended work, he had lost money.
5. He asked for all heating related service charges to be cancelled from February 2020 to April 2022 due to ongoing issues with the heating. He stated he should not pay for a service that was not provided. He said he spoke to staff about the same request in January 2021 and February 2022 and was told to raise a complaint. He had not done this.
6. An engineer had attended in March 2022 and diagnosed the problem. The valve that controlled the unit needed replacing. Further problems arose and the valve was not fitted.
7. His son was always complaining of cold, but now he had a baby in the property too.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 28 September 2022.
The next repair for no heating or hot water was raised on 29 September 2022. The contractor’s notes confirm it called the resident to book the appointment but had to leave a message. An appointment was made for 4 October 2022.
The resident, who works night shifts, was in bed at 8pm on 4 October 2022. He stated the engineer did not attend until 9pm and so access was not granted. An appointment was made for 5 October 2022, before 5.30pm.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident to provide the complaint outcome. He confirmed the repair reported on 29 September 2022. He said he was not contacted until 3 October 2022. It was noted that the resident asked for the boiler to be replaced as he said it was breaking down too often. The landlord confirmed the following:
1. The contractor was attending that day. It asked the resident to let it know the outcome.
2. The contractor had been asked to provide the repair history. The landlord would use the information to process the compensation claim once the repair had been completed.
3. If the resident did not agree with the compensation, he should let the landlord know and the complaint would be escalated to the next stage.
An engineer attended on 5 October 2022. The hot water was working when he left the property, but it was noted the heating needed a PRV reducer.
The resident emailed the landlord following the engineer’s visit on 5 October 2022. He confirmed the hot water was stable, but the engineer had told him something was blocking the flow. The resident said the heating was still not working and the pressure was low, but the engineer was not sure why. The resident said he told the engineer what a previous engineer had said about the valve, but that on a more recent visit, an engineer had refused to fit it. The engineer had told him it takes a long time so he would not be able to do it on this visit. The engineer took the valve with him and said he would come back.
On 6 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident’s email to the contractor. It asked for an explanation as to why the issue was taking so long and asked for feedback regarding the service received. It asked what work was required to resolve the issue and stated the resident was getting distressed.
The contractor responded to the landlord on 6 October 2022. They confirmed they had received the order on 29 September 2022 and sent 2 texts to the resident to arrange an appointment. They did not gain access on 4 October 2022, but visited on 5 October 2022. They confirmed the materials had been ordered and were available and an engineer was to attend on 7 October 2022.
On 7 October 2022, the engineer attended. He confirmed the previous engineer had taken the valve with him, so it was not available for this appointment. The engineer confirmed he topped up the pressure and bled all the radiators and the resident was left with heating and hot water.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2022 after the engineer’s visit. He confirmed the engineer had got the heating on, but it was not as hot as it had been. He confirmed the previous engineer had taken the valve with him so it could not be fitted during the visit. The resident asked the landlord if the contractor could fit the new valve that should have been done initially.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord told the resident it would contact the contractor for an update. It subsequently emailed the contractor and asked them to arrange for the new valve to be fitted as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 October 2022. He said an engineer had attended again without the new valve. He said this was the second wasted visit without any repairs being completed. The contractor’s note states that when the engineer attended, there was over 1 bar of pressure in the system. The engineer tested the heating, and it was working. They said the resident had confirmed the heating had been working.
The landlord called the resident on 13 October 2022. He expressed his frustration with the contractor. He said his time had been wasted, the valve had still not been fitted and when the engineers attended, they were not aware of what they should be doing. The landlord discussed compensation and told him it was putting together an offer which would then be sent to him.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord emailed the contractor. It asked for an appointment to resolve the issue, and for the attending engineer to be aware of the repair and what part was needed.
On 18 October 2022, the contractor confirmed a supervisor had attended on 12 October 2022. They confirmed they would investigate and provide a further update.
The landlord made a compensation offer of £160 to the resident on 20 October 2022. The compensation addressed the 4 days without heating or hot water and the 2 occasions where the contractor failed to keep the appointment or was unable to resolve the issue. The compensation also acknowledged the inconvenience, distress and time and effort spent by the resident. It gave him 3 working days to accept the offer and stated that if there was no response, it would consider the matter resolved and would finalise the complaint.
The resident declined the offer on 21 October 2022. He stated he had been without heating since 2020, not 4 days as quoted in the offer. He said he had reported problems in February 2021, and he had around 5 visits where the boiler could not be fixed through to March 2021. The resident said due to frustration, he left the boiler unrepaired from March 2021 to 2022.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 November 2022 to discuss the issues that had not been addressed. Using the information from the system, the compensation was then increased to £554. The increase was given for 67 days without heating or hot water, and for 7 occasions where the contractor was unable to resolve the issue. Additional compensation was also given in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience. The offer was accepted.
The compensation payment request was made on 9 November 2022. It was chased on 29 November 2022 after the resident asked for an update. The landlord’s internal records confirm the request was to be deleted as it had not been raised correctly. There is no evidence the landlord raised the request again.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 February 2023. He confirmed the compensation that had been offered, but not received. He said he had not had a response regarding the cancelling of the service charges. As the full complaint process had not been exhausted, the resident submitted an escalation request. This was made on 1 March 2023. He asked the landlord to go back and read his initial complaint, cancel the heating and hot water charges and send the compensation that had been offered.
On 22 March 2023, the resident contacted this Service again as he had not received a response from the landlord regarding his escalation. The landlord was asked to work with the resident to process the complaint via its complaint process or provide this Service with its final complaint response.
The landlord’s records confirm the complaint was activated as a stage 2 complaint, and an acknowledgment was sent to the resident on 23 March 2023. It told the resident it would respond by 21 April 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 March 2023. He confirmed he wanted further compensation for the delays to the boiler. He said he had been raising issues for years, but it had only been repaired and not replaced.
On 6 April 2023, the landlord asked the contractor for a full timeline of the repairs. It confirmed the resident was asking for more compensation due to the time he had been without heating. The contractor provided repair information from 26 January 2021 to 12 October 2022. Over this time, 12 visits had been made to the property, 3 of which were no access visits. No further repairs had been reported following the last visit in October 2022.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 21 April 2023. It stated the escalation had been made on 23 March 2023. It confirmed the reason for the escalation was the poor service from the landlord and the contractor, and the failure to pay the compensation offered at stage 1. The response included:
1. An apology for the delay, distress and inconvenience caused and a thank you to the resident for his ongoing patience.
2. A summary of the visits made to the property from 26 January 2021 to 12 October 2022 in relation to the boiler.
3. An acknowledgement that the delays were unacceptable, and the service was not reflective of the expected standards.
4. Confirmation that the boiler had been repaired and would not be replaced.
5. Confirmation that an offer of £554 had been made and accepted at stage 1.
6. An apology for the delay in responses provided which was due to a backlog.
7. An apology for the chasers the resident had to make for updates on the complaint. The landlord apologised for the poor service and explained there had been staff changes within the complaint team.
8. An offer of £764 in compensation for the following:
  1. £554 offered in the stage 1 complaint.
  2. £50 for the delay in the final complaint response.
  3. £60 for the time and effort.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience.
On 11 July 2023, the resident contacted this Service to ask for his complaint to be investigated. He stated he had been through 2 years without heating or hot water before it was repaired. He said he had received poor treatment from the contractor not turning up to appointments and had experienced distress and a loss of earnings. He said the landlord had continued to charge him for a service he had not received. As a resolution, he asked for the following:
1. The service charge arrears to be cancelled.
2. Additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. The policy states:
1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged by the end of the next working day and responded to with 10 working days from the complaint being logged. The response will explain the outcome, how the landlord intends to resolve the complaint and the timescales.
2. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to with 20 working days from the receipt of the request.
3. If at any stage more time is required, this will be explained to the resident and a response will be provided no more than 10 working days later.
4. After the decision is confirmed at any stage, progress will be monitored until all actions are completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will apply an empathetic, fair, and consistent approach when offering compensation. It lists the scenarios where compensation will, and will not, be offered and the levels that can be awarded.
The landlord’s repair policy states the following:
1. It is responsible for repairs to full hot and cold-water supply and all types of heating systems.
2. Residents should report repairs promptly and allow access to carry out the work.
3. Routine day to day repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. Emergency works will be attended with 24 hours. Out of hour emergency works will be attended within 4 hours to ‘make safe’.

Boiler repairs.

The landlord’s repair history confirmed the last report of no heating or hot water prior to the complaint made in September 2022, was on 24 January 2022. It is the resident’s responsibility to report repairs promptly so the landlord can respond appropriately. As there was a 7-month gap from January to September 2022, it suggests that the heating was not an ongoing problem as there was no complaint made or further repairs reported (after work completed in April 2022) prior to September 2022.
On receipt of the report on 24 January 2022, the contractor’s records indicated it attempted contact with the resident the same day to arrange the appointment. While this was an appropriate response from the contractor, following a call back from the resident, the appointment was confirmed for 28 January 2022. An engineer identified a fault with the PRV and recommended a replacement. The contractor’s notes demonstrate it acted in a timely and appropriate manner by ordering the materials required to complete the repair.
While allowing reasonable time for delivery of the materials, an appointment was made for the PRV to be replaced on 10 February 2022. During this appointment, it was identified the wrong part had been received, so the repair could not be completed. It is not clear if the error was made at the order or supply stage, therefore it is difficult to establish if the contractor was at fault and if this contributed to the delay. A new PRV was ordered.
An engineer attended on 1 April 2022 to fit the new PRV. While there is evidence of the checks made and the actions taken, there is no evidence to confirm the PRV was replaced during this visit, or an explanation given to the resident why it was not. It is not clear why it was not done after being confirmed as needed. This raises concern regarding the contractor’s diagnostic processes, decision making and communication with the landlord and resident. When appointments are arranged with residents to replace parts, expectations have been set. It is likely to cause frustration when these actions are not completed and potentially give cause for the matter to be escalated to a complaint.
Following this visit, no further repairs were reported until September 2022, 5 months later. This would suggest that while the PRV was not fitted, the actions of the engineer on 1 April 2022 resolved the problem. While the contractor’s records state 2 texts were sent to the resident to book an appointment, the resident advises he was not contacted until 3 October 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the texts sent to the resident; therefore, it is not possible to confirm if the messages were sent. The resident states the appointment was arranged for 4 October 2022 between 8am and 5pm, but the engineer did not arrive until 9pm. While this is not disputed by the contractor, there is no evidence to confirm this timeframe was agreed. It is expected that if an engineer is running late, the resident is contacted with an update. There is no evidence of any contact with the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. Due to working patterns, the resident was in bed, and it was a no access visit.
An engineer attended on 5 October 2022. The hot water was stabilised, but it was noted a PRV reducer was needed. The engineer took the PRV that had been left at the property as he was to make an appointment to return and fit it.
The evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that it was chasing the contractor for an update and was trying to get the problem resolved as soon as possible. The contractor confirmed the materials were available and an engineer would attend on 7 October 2022. At this time, the PRV had still not been fitted.
The engineer did not have the part required to complete the repair on 7 October 2022. While the resident was left with heating and hot water, the Ombudsman finds the service provided by the contractor unreasonable. The contractor had confirmed the materials were available, so it is unclear why the engineer attended without them. This is a failing of the contractor who should have processes in place to ensure engineers are carrying the necessary parts to appointments. The landlord was aware of the continuing problem through its contact with the resident. As the landlord has ultimate responsibility for maintaining the property, it is expected that it monitors and challenges the service of its contractor. Other than it asking for updates, there is no evidence of sufficient challenge or investigation from the landlord into the contractor’s performance and repeated visits to the property. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
An engineer attended on 12 October 2022, without the valve. The engineer’s notes confirm he tested the heating, which was working, and the resident had confirmed the heating had been working. It is clear from the tone of the emails to the landlord that the resident was becoming more frustrated with every appointment that was passing by without the repair being completed. He told the landlord it was affecting his work as he was having to take special time off and was losing wages.
Although the landlord emailed the contractor to ask for a new appointment for the valve to be fitted, there is no evidence that any further visits took place or that the valve was replaced. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the boiler repairs. It is acknowledged the repairs are completed by a contractor, but it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure these are completed in line with its obligations. Seven visits were made between January and October 2022, for most of which the resident had to take time off work to allow access. While it is reasonable for the resident to make plans to allow access, there is evidence of several errors from the contractor which added to the delay in resolving the problem and this contributed to the frustration of the resident.
As the landlord is responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance, it is appropriate that it scrutinises or challenges the service and decisions of the contractor. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, nor did it receive a definitive answer regarding the delays that had occurred. As a result, it could not communicate its findings to the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. The landlord did however acknowledge the contractor’s failures in its offer of £554 compensation, along with the inconvenience, distress and time and effort taken by the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while this is an appropriate level of compensation, due to the failings identified within this report and the lack of assurance that lessons had been learned (other than general feedback in the final complaint response), a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Service charges.

The resident has stated he discussed this issue previously with staff in 2021 and 2022. While this is not disputed, there is no evidence of the contact between the landlord and resident on this matter. Due to the lack of evidence, no further comment can be made as to what was discussed at that time.
It is evident that the resident asked the landlord to cancel the charges for the heating and hot water within his initial stage 1 complaint and escalation request. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s direct request in any of its correspondence or complaint responses. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. It is expected that the landlord addresses the issues raised by the resident in an appropriate timescale to reduce the possibility of them escalating further. Due to the lack of response from the landlord, this is likely to have contributed to the escalation of the complaint and increase in the resident’s frustration.
The Ombudsman cannot determine if the service charges should be paid by the resident or not. It can however determine if the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s request. Based on the evidence provided, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request. As a result of this finding, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Associated complaint and processing the compensation award.

The resident’s complaint dated 27 September 2022 was received by the landlord on 28 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint in a reasonable timeframe and in line with its policy.
The landlord emailed the stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 October 2022 which was within the policy timescales. The landlord apologised that a complaint had to be raised. It told the resident it had asked the contractor for the repair history and would use the information to process a compensation claim. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response lacked detail and did not address the issues raised by the customer. At the time the response was sent, the landlord had not received the repair information. It had not completed an investigation therefore could not provide an informed decision or address any findings in the action and service from the contractor. While it told the resident it would process the compensation on receipt of the information, it did not provide any indication as to when the resident should expect the offer.
The landlord is expected to comply with its complaint policy, which states the response should explain the outcome, how the landlord intends to resolve the complaint and the timescales involved. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not comply with its own policy. As the response timeframe was 10 working days, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take more time to complete more investigatory work. It would then have been in a better position to provide a more detailed response to the resident with definitive actions and learnings.
It took the landlord a further 11 working days to email the resident with the compensation offer of £160. Other than the breakdown of the offer, the email did not provide any investigation detail, outcomes, service improvements or actions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has missed this opportunity to provide the resident with a detailed complaint response This is unreasonable.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that if he disagreed with the offer, it would escalate the complaint to the next stage. The resident did decline the offer, and the landlord increased it to £554, however it did not escalate the complaint to the next stage as it said it would. It told the resident the offer had been increased on receipt of further information but did not provide any further detail regarding the complaint investigation or action to be taken as a result.
The resident accepted the compensation offer and the landlord requested the payment on 9 November 2022. There is no evidence of any further communication relating to the payment until the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord’s internal records confirmed the request was cancelled as it had not been raised correctly. There is no evidence to confirm the request was made again, or any contact with the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable, and this was a contributing factor to the escalation of the complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 1 March 2023, however he did not receive an acknowledgement. This gave the resident cause to contact this Service on 22 March 2023, and the landlord was asked to respond to the complaint in accordance with its complaint policy. It is a concern that this escalation request was not actioned and was only progressed following the involvement of this Service.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request on 23 March 2023, 16 days after the resident’s request. It confirmed it would respond by 21 April 2023.
The final complaint response was sent to the resident on 21 April 2023. Although this was in line with the date provided in the acknowledgement, it was 36 working days after the initial request was made. The landlord accepted and apologised for the delays in providing updates and complaint responses and agreed the level of service was below standard. It acknowledged the failings; however, it did not fully apply the dispute resolution principles by addressing how it would learn from these to improve service delivery in the future.
Throughout his correspondence, the resident had repeatedly asked for the service charge bills to be cancelled due to the lack of service received. As above, the landlord failed to address this matter at either stage of the complaint process and was an outstanding factor that was brought to this Service by the resident.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, and the delays in processing the compensation offer. The landlord did not fully address the issues raised at either stage of the process. The landlord did not conduct a thorough and fair investigation before providing its stage 1 response. As a result, it offered little information by way of an outcome, learnings, and resolution. The complaint was not escalated after the first compensation offer was rejected, despite the resident being told this would happen, it therefore failed to follow its own procedure. The resident’s escalation was not activated until the involvement of this Service, and the delayed final complaint response did not address all the issues raised. This is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
The landlord offered £210 additional compensation in the final complaint response. This was for the delay in the stage 2 response and for the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience caused. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation is not at the level expected to acknowledge the service failures identified within this report and should be increased. A finding of service failure is still appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of delays completing repairs to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the request to cancel the service charge arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and processing of the compensation offered.

Reasons

There were repeated visits to the property without the recommended work being completed, and without explanation. The resident took time off work for repairs, only for these not to be completed as expected. The landlord has not evidenced any scrutiny or challenge of the contractor’s performance and actions or decisions. This in turn meant it could not provide the resident with any detailed explanation as to why the repair was left unresolved and it did not demonstrate it learned lessons following the complaint outcome.
The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to cancel the charges for the heating and hot water. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request in any correspondence or throughout the complaint process.
The landlord did not address all the issues raised at either stage of the complaint process. The stage 1 complaint lacked investigation, outcomes and actions and did not comply with the landlord’s policy. The escalation request was not actioned until this Service became involved. The landlord acknowledged unacceptable delays and poor service delivery but did not establish how it would learn from the mistakes. The landlord did not process the initial compensation award correctly and there is no evidence of communication with the resident to explain this delay. The landlord’s compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. apologise to him for the failures identified within this report;
  2. answer his request for heating/hot water service charges to be waived, providing a full explanation of its decision, and signposting him as to how he may appeal its decision further if he is dissatisfied with the outcome.
2. Pay the resident £964 compensation, made up of the following:
  1. £764 as agreed in the final complaint response. (If this has been paid already, the landlord should confirm to this Service the date it was paid to the resident).
  2. £100 additional compensation for the failure to respond to the request regarding the service charges.
  3. £100 additional compensation for the failures identified with the complaint handling.
The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or service charge arrears.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its process for investigating contractor performance. The process should include investigation into repeat visits for the same issue and how these will be addressed with the contractor. The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm specific lessons that have been learned that will avoid its heating and hot water contractors making repeated unsuccessful visits to properties in future.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider delivering refresher training for staff on how to process compensation. This is to ensure the correct process is followed and to reduce unnecessary delays.
The landlord should respond to this Service within 4 weeks to confirm its intentions against the recommendations made.