Northampton Borough Council (202008281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008281

Northampton Borough Council

26 May 2021

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 response to:
1. The resident’s complaint about its administration of his service charges, its maintenance and repair of his block, grounds maintenance and cleaning, and his reports of ASB, for which the landlord issued its final response on 2 September 2019.
2. The resident’s complaint that the actions regarding remedial works agreed in its final response to his previous complaint of 2 September 2019, had not been completed.
3. The resident’s complaint that the actions regarding grounds maintenance, agreed in its final response to his previous complaint of 2 September 2019, had not been completed.
4. The resident’s request for the full costs for his block being included in all service charge statements.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
On 11 March 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding:
1. The standard of the grounds maintenance service at his property and its response to his request to carry out the works himself.
2. The landlord’s administration of his service charges.
3. Security doors to the main entrance of his property.
4. Refurbishment works and poor workmanship.
5. The standard of cleaning at the resident’s block.
6. Responsibility for covering the cost of a replacement front door to his flat.
7. Antisocial behaviour.
8. Flooring.
9. Door entrance reveals not being fitted with cover plates to the door jambs.
10. External paving, steps and fencing.
11. Rainwater drainpipes
The resident’s complaint progressed through the landlord’s complaints process and all the concerns raised by the resident were considered at a Stage 3 Panel meeting on 28 August 2019. The landlord issued its final response on 2 September 2019.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, all the matters raised by the resident on 11 March 2019 and considered by the landlord in its Stage 3 Panel meeting are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 2 September 2019. The resident bought his complaint to this service on 4 November 2020, more than one year later.
The issue of the landlord failing to advise the resident that its response of 2 September 2019 was its final response and giving the resident incorrect information about him being unable to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman has been considered as part of this investigation in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a Council. The lease commenced on 29 July 1991. Prior to this the resident was a secure tenant of the landlord since 1982. The lease for the property was purchased by the resident under the Right to Buy. The property is managed by an ALMO of the landlord. For the purpose of this report the ALMO will be referred to as ‘‘the landlord’’.
In its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 2 September 2019, the landlord agreed to a number of actions including:
1. That it had instructed surveys to liaise with tenants to replace both the fencing and the shed to his neighbouring properties. The landlord said that whilst the new timber fencing had now been erected the right way round, the quality of the workmanship could be better and so it will arrange for this to be attended to. The landlord also agreed that the installation of the steps was ‘‘wholly unacceptable’’ and that it would make arrangements with the contractor to return and rebuild the steps to an acceptable standard. The landlord also said that the poor workmanship with regards to bent overflow pipes and the rainwater downpipes fitted without swan necks would be addressed with its contractor.
2. That it would address the issues relating to grounds maintenance with its contractor and that it would be happy to agree to the resident undertaking the grounds maintenance at his block himself subject to agreement being obtained in writing from all residents in the block as a unanimous decision would be required and the resident obtaining Public Liability Insurance to cover him and the landlord against any accidents or claims that may arise. The landlord said that it would work with the resident at looking into providing cover and the costs associated with public liability insurance
This investigation will consider the resident’s subsequent complaint that the landlord failed to carry out the above actions. This investigation will not consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s previous complaint was reasonable, as that complaint is outside of our remit, as explained in the Jurisdiction section above. This investigation will also not consider whether the remedial works or ground maintenance services provided by the landlord were carried out to a fair and reasonable standard or cost. This is because such are matters for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Services) to consider and are therefore outside of the remit of this service under Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme.

Summary of events

On 3 October 2019, the landlord carried out a Grounds Maintenance inspection at the resident’s block. The inspection graded the leaf clearance, grassed areas, shrub bed and hedge maintenance and weed clearance and removal of ivy as Grade B. Tree management was given a Grade A. The only comment on the inspection form was that the grass was growing.
In an email to the landlord of 7 October 2019, the resident said that he had signed the forms for the request for the resident’s to carry out the grounds maintenance themselves, his neighbours had not yet been contacted by the landlord with regards to the fencing and sheds and the contractor had visited the block to inspect their work but that nothing had been done thus far. The landlord responded the same day. The landlord said that it appreciated the updated and would chase up the contractors over their timescale for returning.
On 10 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord again to advise that minor works had been carried out on the rear fencing with some of the panels nailed back in place and that the rear garden steps had been looked at once again but nothing done. The landlord responded the same day. The landlord advised that until it had agreement from everyone in the block for the resident to do the grounds maintenance work at their block, and until the insurance arrangements had been finalised, it was not in a position to remove his block from its grounds maintenance contract. With regards to the remedial works, the landlord said that it had had staff on site in the last two days scheduling and detailing what works the contractor needs to carry out. The landlord said that once this has been completed a finalised programme could be agreed with the contractor. The resident said it would advise the resident when this had been done but asked that he give it time to do so.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 30 October 2019. In his email the resident said that he had to chase the landlord up about the issue of insurance and was then told that its insurer could not help, and that he would need to seek his own insurance to cover him carrying out the grounds maintenance for his block. The resident said that he had approached an insurance broker who had advised him that that the buildings insurance for a block of flats always has Public Liability insurance and so he should be covered to carry out grounds maintenance as a private individual living in the block.
On 7 November 2019, the landlord forwarded a copy of the response it had received from its insurance provider which explained that whilst its policy would cover the resident for things such as burst pipe in his flat which then caused damage to another leasehold property, it would not cover him carrying out grounds maintenance at his block. The advice given by the landlord’s insurance provider was that the resident would need to get his own public liability insurance cover in order to carry out such works.
On 20 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord following a visit by the landlord and its fencing contractors. The resident said that the sheds and fencing were being installed that week but there were issues remaining with regards to the rest of the fencing around the rear garden, and that swan necks had been fitted to all but one of the downpipes. The resident also disputed the information he had received from the landlord about his building insurance not covering him with regards to him carrying out grounds maintenance at his block.
Between 23 December 2019 and 10 February 2020, the resident and the landlord continued to communicate about public liability insurance. Both parties maintaining their respective positions as to whether or not the resident’s building insurance covered the resident were he to carry out the grounds maintenance at his block
On 6 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord about the outstanding work to the fencing and the replacement of the rear steps. On 10 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that his concerns had been passed to its planned works team to respond.
The landlord carried out grounds maintenance inspections at the resident’s block on 17 February, 3 June and 8 September 2020. The inspection of 17 February 2020 found no issues with the standard of the service. The inspection of 3 June 2020, noted that the grass to the rear of the block and the shrubs to the front and side of the block needed trimming, and a shrub to the back needed to be cut down. The inspection on 8 September 2020, highlighted a number of tasks that the grass was overdue and overgrown in the rear garden, the shrubs shortly need attention and no weeding had been done around the front path of the block.
On 24 September 2020, the landlord held a meeting with the Grounds Maintenance contractor where the landlord addressed the issues relating to grounds maintenance. The minutes noted that performance had dipped during the summer months, weather conditions had caused excessive growth due to the heat & wet weather, shrub growth needed to be monitored, grassed areas required some improvement and that attention was required particularly to weed spraying, dependent upon weather conditions. The contractor advised of some staffing issues in the area due to isolation under Covid restrictions.
On 2 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain that a number of actions that had been agreed by the landlord in its final response to his previous complaint had still not been carried out. The resident said that since that response the only things that had been carried out was the fitting of swan necks to all but one of the down pipes around the block and the installing of the gate on the front path. The resident said that:
1. He had never been contacted by either the landlord or its contractor regarding the remedial works, including footpaths, fencing and rear steps. The resident also said that he was still waiting for the roof of his block to be fixed and that should any further damage be caused by squirrels or rain water etc. he would hold the landlord responsible for all repairs and costs
2. The landlord’s grounds maintenance contractors continued to provide a substandard service, only strimming the grass, leaving mess everywhere and missing areas. The resident complained that despite the landlord having agreed to work with him to arrange for the resident’s to do the grounds maintenance themselves, all he had been given was ‘‘the run around’’. The resident also said that he had contacted an insurance company who told him that his building insurance should cover gardening but the landlord had told him that its insurer could not supply him with insurance and that his public liability insurance, contained within his building insurance, only covered him to ‘‘sit in the communal areas’’.

The resident also complained about the landlord’s service charge administration, stating that the landlord had agreed that full costs for the block would be included in all statements so that the figures could be checked by leaseholders, but that this had not happened.

On 5 October, the landlord carried out an inspection of the Grounds Maintenance at the resident’s block and reported that ‘‘the standard of grass cutting was extremely poor with the whole grassed area being strimmed with the result of an extremely poor standard of cutting and grass fragments left everywhere’’. The report was forwarded to the landlord’s grounds maintenance contractor the same day. The landlord said that it did not believe the application of strimming, other than to edges, would produce a standard that meets the contract specification and that the use of strimmers in very wet weather conditions was not conducive to producing a quality grass cut.
The landlord issued its first, and final, response on 16 October 2020. The landlord said that it had been concerned to hear that the works that had been authorised following its final response to the resident’s previous complaint had not been completed. The landlord said that it had now fully investigated the issues the resident had raised but had determined that all the actions referred to in its Stage 3 response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 2 September 2019, had been carried out.
1. With regards to the outstanding remedial works, the landlord said that the fencing to the neighbouring properties had been replaced and that the 2 new sheds, which were tied in with the fencing, were completed at the beginning of the year. The landlord also said that the picket fence at the front of the block was installed as requested. The landlord acknowledged that its contractor had been recalled to attend to the steps again, as they still require attention and that the contractor was scheduled to carry out an inspection on the external steps the following week.

Following the receipt of the resident’s email, the guttering had been inspected and was performing as required. The landlord said that it could find no evidence of sitting rainwater after heavy rainfall the previous evening and that the rainwater downpipes were fitted with swan necks as agreed.

The landlord noted that the resident had complained about the roof but that this appeared to be a new issues that was not part of its Stage 3 complaint. The landlord confirmed that it was responsible for the roof and the loft space and that trees are surveyed every four years and any overhanging branches pruned back. The landlord explained that whilst this helps minimise the risk it cannot prevent squirrels from gaining access to the roof.

With regards to the resident’s concerns about Grounds Maintenance, the landlord said that it carries out quarterly inspections which involve checks for leaves, grassed areas, shrubs and hedges, tree management (not major works) plus weed clearance. The landlord said that no concerns were raised follow its inspections of 17 February, 3 June and 8 September 2020. The landlord said that it had carried out an inspection visit following the resident’ complaint which confirmed the resident’s assessment of the standard of work completed. The landlord said that it had discussed its findings with its contractor who had been advised to reduce the use of strimming equipment in the maintenance of the grassed areas and to refrain from its use completely in very wet weather.

The landlord reiterated that it was happy to agree to removing the grounds maintenance charge from the resident’s service charge subject to agreement by all resident and that the resident obtained public liability insurance to cover him and the landlord against any accidents or claims that may arise. The landlord said that the public liability section of the buildings insurance which the resident pays for as part of his service charges does not cover him to carry out grounds maintenance.

With regards to the landlord including full costs for the block in all service charge statements. The landlord said that there was no requirement in the resident’s lease for it to provide the full costs for the block in the statements.

Assessment and findings

The resident has complained that the landlord has failed to carry out the actions it had agreed to in its final response to his previous complaint. These actions related to remedial works, the service provided by the grounds maintenance contractors and the resident’s request to carry out the ground maintenance himself. The resident also complained that the landlord had not provided him with full costs in his service charge statements.

Actions regarding remedial works, agreed in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s previous complaint

The resident’s lease obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and the exterior of the resident’s flat and his block. This is confirmed in the landlord’s Leaseholder handbook which also refers to the landlord being responsible for any fences, walls, outbuildings and sheds which it installed, plus the main paths that lead from the boundary (gate) to the front and back doors.
The landlord’s Leaseholder Handbook also provides details of response times for different types of repairs. For non-urgent repairs the handbook states that the landlord will complete the repair within 25 days and may extend the timescales for certain repairs, for example if materials need to be ordered.
The both the landlord and the resident have provided evidence that has been considered as part of this investigation. However, it has been noted that the evidence provided by the landlord is limited in terms of contemporaneous repair logs, records of dates property attended and explanations of works caried out at each visit.
In its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 2 September 2019, the landlord agreed that it would make arrangements with its contractor to return and rebuild the rear steps to an acceptable standard. The works had not been completed by the time of the landlord’s final response to the resident’s subsequent complaint over a year later, 16 October 2020. In its response of 16 October 2020, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any explanation for the delay in the remedial works to the steps, only advising that they still required attention and that the contractor was scheduled to carry out an inspection on the external steps the following week.
The landlord subsequently advised this service that after a number of delays, works to the steps commenced on 15 March 2021 and were finally completed within 5 days. Completion of the works was confirmed by the resident in an email to the landlord of 17 March 2021, just short of 18 months after the landlord had agreed, in its final response of 2 September 2019, to make arrangement with the contractor to carry out the necessary works. This was far in excess of the 25 days’ timescale given in the Leaseholder’s handbook for non-urgent repairs and the landlord has not provided the any reasonable explanation for the excessive length of time it took to carry out the works to the rear step.
With regards to the bent overflow pipes and rainwater pipes fitted without swan necks. In its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord said that the issue of the poor workmanship with regards to bent overflow pipes and the rainwater downpipes fitted without swan necks would be addressed with its contractor. Two months later, in an email to the landlord of 20 December 2019, the resident confirmed that swan necks had been fitted to all but one of the down pipes. The resident also confirmed this in his complaint to the landlord of 2 October 2020, in which he said that the swan necks had been fitted, as agreed by the landlord.
This service has seen an internal landlord email that suggested some of the above delays may be due to Covid restrictions however, as these were external works this alone is not sufficient to explain such long delays, particularly in relation to the rear steps, nor was this explained to the resident as a potential cause for the delay in its complaint response.
In its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord said that it would arrange for the issues with the new timber fences to be attended to. The landlord visited the resident’s block, with a fencing contractor, on 20 December 2019. In its final response to this complaint the landlord said that the fencing to the neighbouring properties had been replaced and that the 2 new sheds, which were tied in with the fencing, and the picket fence were completed at the beginning of 2020.
Having considered the evidence, and for the reasons explained above, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its unreasonable delay in completing the works to the rear step, which it had agreed to in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 2 September 2019 but did not complete until March 2021. The landlord also failed to apologise or provide any explanation to the resident for the delays.

Actions regarding Grounds Maintenance, agreed in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s previous complaint

Following the landlord’s final response to the resident’s previous complaint, and order to satisfy itself regarding the standard of grounds maintenance undertaken by the contractor, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out inspections of the grounds maintenance at the resident block, which it did on 3 October 2019, 17 February, 3 June and 8 September 2020. The landlord found no issues during its inspections of 3 October 2019 nor 17 February 2020. Its inspection of 3 June and 8 September 2020 highlighted a number of tasks that needed to be carried out.
Given that was the case, and as it had agreed to do so in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to address any concerns in its meeting with the Grounds Maintenance contractor on 24 September 2020. The meeting resulted in a number of action points being agreed, including that shrub growth needed to be monitored, that the grassed areas required some improvement and that attention was required particularly to weed spraying.
Following the resident’s complaint, a further inspection was carried out on 5 October 2020, which again raised similar concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance, particularly the grass cutting. Again, it was appropriate for the landlord to discuss its finding with its contractor.
It is of concern however, that whilst the landlord advised that it had discussed the concerns raised in its inspection with the resident, in its final response the landlord failed to acknowledge that a number of issues with the grounds maintenance were identified in its inspection of 3 June and 8 September or to make any reference to its meeting with the contractor on 24 September 2020. In fact the landlord said that there were ‘‘no concerns were raised’’ in its inspection of 3 June and 8 September 2020 which was clearly not the case.
With regards to the resident’s request to carry out the grounds maintenance himself instead of the work being carried out by the contractor. The landlord acted reasonably and responsibly in response to the resident’s request. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord has responsibility for maintenance of the communal areas, which would include any communal gardens. The landlord also has a responsibility to other residents, to ensure that they would be happy for there to be a change to the grounds maintenance arrangements at the scheme and that they, and other members of the public were safe. For this reason it was reasonable for the landlord, though happy to consider his request, to insist that the resident gained the consent of all the resident’s in the block and to ensure he had Public liability insurance to cover both himself and the landlord against any potential claim.
There is also evidence of the landlord seeking to work with the resident with regards to the Public liability insurance, this service having seen a number of emails between the landlord and the resident regarding whether his existing building insurance policy would provide the appropriate cover and evidence of the landlord seeking advice from its own insurer. It is clear that whether or not the residents insurance provides suitable cover remains in dispute. However, this is not a matter that this service has the expertise to comment on and so has not been considered as part of this investigation.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord carried out the actions it agreed to in its final response of 2 September 2019 with regards to ground maintenance at the resident’s block. The landlord carried out a number of grounds maintenance inspections and, as it had agreed, addressed any concerns with its contractor. The landlord set reasonable conditions on the resident taking over the grounds maintenance at his block and liaised with him with regards to obtaining the required public liability insurance. The issues with regards to the landlord’s complaint response have been considered below relation to the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Full costs for his block being included in all service charge statements.

There is no evidence of the landlord agreeing to include full costs for the block in all statements in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint.
In its response to this complaint the landlord explained that there was no requirement in the resident’s lease for it to provide the full costs for the block in the statements. This was reasonable and in accordance with Section 12.6 of the resident’s lease which states that ‘‘As soon as practicable after the end of the year (the landlord) shall prepare and service on the lessee a statement containing:
1. A summary of expenditure incurred in that year relevant to the service charge, and
2. The final amount of the service charge.
Whilst the lease only obliges the landlord to provide a ‘summary’ of costs and not a full breakdown, under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the resident has the right, within six months of receipt of the summary, to ask the landlord to allow him to inspect receipts, accounts etc. as a follow-up to provide more detail on the summary and to provide facilities for them to be copied.
It is acknowledged that this information is contained within the Service Charges – Summary of tenants’ rights and obligations document sent to the resident with his service charge summary. However, it may have been helpful, and more solution focused, had the landlord reminded the resident that he had the right to do so in its final complaint response.

Complaint Handling

The landlord has a three Stage complaints process. The landlord’s Complaints policy states that responses with be provided within 10 working days for Stage 1 and 2 complaints. At Stage 3 the complaint will be considered by a panel within 20 working days of the escalation request being received, and the panel will response to the resident within 10 working days of the panel hearing.
The complaints policy goes on to state that where a resident is not satisfied with the response they receive at either Stage 1 or Stage 2 of its complaints process, they can request that the complaint is escalated to the next stage but must do so within 28 days of receiving the landlord’s response, and that escalation of a complaint is not automatic and is subject to consideration of the reasons put forward by the resident.
The landlord’s definition of a complaint in its complaints policy does not include issues that have already been resolved through its complaints process.
Paragraph 25a of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that residents who have a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members, including people who have a lease.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it has a three Stage process and therefore the landlord’s response of 2 September 2019 was its final response to the resident’s previous complaint. However, the landlord failed to make it clear that that was the case in its response of that date. In addition, whilst the landlord correctly advised the resident that he could seek support from the Leasehold Advisory Service and, should he wish to, could apply to the First Tier Tribunal, it incorrectly advised the resident that he could not bring his complaint to the Ombudsman, thereby restricting the resident the opportunity for his complaint to be considered by this service.
With regards to the resident’s complaint of 2 October 2020. As the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had failed to carry out actions it had agreed to in its final response to his previous complaint, is was appropriate for the landlord to log the resident’s complaint of 2 October 2020 as a new complaint under its the complaints procedure. However, the landlord then only issued a final response.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s Complaints policy states that an escalation of a complaint is not automatic and is subject to consideration of the reasons put forward by the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code also states that landlord should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action.
The reason the landlord gave for its response of 16 October 2020 concluding its formal complaints process with a single final response was that all the actions agreed to in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint had been carried out. As this investigation has established that was not the case. The landlord’s decision to only issue one, final response to his complaint, therefore denied the resident an opportunity to request a review and the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. As a result, and having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that there was therefore service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its actions regarding remedial works agreed in its final response to his previous complaint of 2 September 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its actions regarding grounds maintenance, agreed in its final response to his previous complaint of 2 September 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the full costs for his block being included in all service charge statements.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

In its final response of 16 October 2020, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any explanation for the delay in the remedial works to the rear steps, only advising that they still required attention and that the contractor was scheduled to carry out an inspection on the external steps the following week. This was despite it agreeing to carry out the works in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 2 September 2019, over a year earlier. The works were then not completed until March 2021.
The landlord carried out all the actions it had agreed to in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, addressing its concerns with the grounds maintenance contractor and working with the resident with regards to public liability cover for him to carry out the grounds maintenance at his block.
The landlord provided the resident with a response to his request for the full costs for his block being included in all service charge statements that was in accordance with the terms of his lease.
The landlord failed to advise the resident in its response of 2 September 2019 that that was its final response. The landlord also incorrectly advised the resident in the same response that he could not bring his complaint to this service.
The landlord’s decision to only issue one, final response to his complaint, denied the resident an opportunity to request a review and the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. In its final response of 16 October 2020, the landlord said that the resident’s complaint had reached the end of its complaints process as it had carried out all the actions agreed to in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint had been carried out. As this investigation has established that was not the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within six weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident and pay him £150 compensation for the delay in carrying out the remedial works to the rear steps.
2. Apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
3. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

That the landlord carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff and assesses its complaint handling procedures against our Complaint Handling Code.
That the landlord ensures that its complaint handling staff have a clear understanding of who can bring a complaint to this service under Paragraph 25a of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme.
That the landlord provide the resident with further information about how he might exercise his right to inspect relevant documents under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
That within six weeks of this determination, the landlord is to confirm to this service what actions it had taken in respect of the above recommendations.