Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202009510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009510

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

31 August 2022

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. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property including her understanding that it was in a noise-controlled area.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of various repair issues including those relating to the heating system (including the radiators), front and rear doors, windows, toilet, cladding, guttering and the loft.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in mid-2020. The property is a new build, two-bedroom bungalow where the resident lives with her daughter. This Service understands the property was built in 2018. The resident has physical disabilities – lung/respiratory problems; she told this Service that she also has PTSD,brain trauma and memory loss.
The tenancy agreement sets out the repairs for which the landlord is responsible. It says the landlord will keep the structure of the property in repair and will keep in proper working order, among other things:
1. All the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and waste pipes.
2. Its installations for room heating and hot water.
3. Its fixtures and fittings.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is around 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks for the elderly and below 10°C carries a great risk of hypothermia, especially for the elderly. It explains that excess cold can be caused by several factors preventative measures include an appropriate/properly installed/maintained occupant controllable low-level background ventilation without too much heat loss/draughts and properly fitting butt-jointed floor boarding/doors/windows.
The landlord has a new home standard which sets out the work that will be carried out on a property before a new resident moves in. This includes the following:
1. All internal and external doors will be in good working order.
2. All bathroom and toilet fittings will be in full working order and a new toilet seat will be fitted.
3. Gas and electric safety checks will have been carried out.
Most new build homes have a 10-year warranty for building problems and are usually insured by a home warranty body such as the National House Building Council. These organisations can assist where a potential defect in the property has been identified and the property is over two years old. If the property is under two years old, then the builder should be approached in the first instance.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards say that emergency repairs are those that need doing because there is an immediate risk of serious injury or death if they are not carried out. These include such matters as a total loss of water/heating; partial loss of water/heating (November to March only); insecure external doors or windows and repairs to toilets and flushes. The standards say that the landlord offers a 24/7 emergency service and will always try to get to an emergency repair callout straight away (within 4 hours) depending on the urgency of the situation and in any case no longer than 24 hours.
These standards also say that priority repairs may affect how a resident uses the property or its facilities. It gives examples of priority repairs as being matters such as faulty door entry systems; repairs to external doors and windows for security purposes; and routine repairs to gutters, roofs and outside walls. The landlord aims to attend these repairs at the first available appointment, typically within seven days or as a maximum within 30 working days (if the item is a renewal) of them being reported to it and to complete as many of these as possible at the first visit (Right First Time).
The landlord has a two stage formal complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within twenty working days.

Summary of events

On 30 March 2020 the landlord carried out various electrical work to the property while it was void. This included checking, testing and issuing a safety certificate after the repairs were completed.
On 6 April 2020 the landlord renewed the shower rail and hose set in the bathroom and fitted a new shower curtain at the property while it was void. It noted it could not install a new toilet seat as it was a wash and dry toilet.
On 6 July 2020 the resident raised an issue about guttering at the property and the landlord raised a job to inspect it. The repair log evidences that this was carried out on 9 July 2020; it did not give the outcome of that inspection.
On the same day the resident reported to the landlord she had no heating or hot water. The repair log notes that this repair was completed on 6 July 2020.
On 22 July 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that threshold strips were missing from the back door and its hinge was broken. The repair log notes that this repair was completed on 4 August 2020.
The repair log evidences on 2 September 2020 that the boiler in the property should be re-pressurised and the radiators checked and notes that this was completed on 9 September 2020.
The repair log evidences on 28 September 2020 the gap at the bottom of the patio door should be checked and repaired and notes a completion date of 4 November 2020.
On 7 October 2020 the resident reported that the seals around the windows to the front of the property were defective and they were letting in draughts. She also reported that draught strips were missing from the inside of the front door. The repair log notes that the repairs were carried out on 3 November 2020.
On 8 October 2020 the resident reported that guttering to the front and back of the property was blocked. The repairs log notes that this repair was completed the following day.
On 12 October 2020 the resident reported that the UPVC doors at the front and rear of the property were letting rain in and it was running under the doors. The repair log does not give a completed date for this issue.
Also on 12 October 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that the property was not correctly advertised as being in a “noise restricted area”. She also complained that her health conditions were not taken into consideration when she was offered the property and that there were outstanding repairs which she believed should have been resolved before she moved in. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day (case reference 112473) and said it would respond by 2 November 2020.
On 30 October 2020 the resident reported that the rear door handle had come off. The repair log notes evidences that a repair was completed the same day.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord extended the deadline to respond to this complaint (case reference 112473) to 13 November 2020.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response under complaint reference 112473 after speaking to the resident on 23 October 2020. The main points were:
1. On 27 March 2020 it had confirmation from the disability housing team that the property was suitable and met the resident’s needs.
2. It did not have criteria for a noise restricted area. It explained that it might advertise a property as “no antisocial behaviour (ASB) applicants can apply” but it did not do so in this case.
3. At sign-up, no repairs were identified nor required. It noted it would contact her to discuss the repair issues.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 14 December 2020 the resident reported that the handle had come off the patio door again. The repair log noted that the landlord should order new handles for the patio doors and make them safe in the meantime. The repair log suggests that the landlord did so the following day.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident about its handling of various issues including her reports of problems with the windows and radiators at the property (reference 113166). This complaint was made by an advice charity (the charity) acting as the resident’s representative. The landlord explained that, due to the nature of the complaint, it would take longer to investigate than its usual target time of 15 working days. It said it expected to respond by 15 February 2021.
On 3 February 2021 the resident reported that the hot water and radiators were not very warm. The repair log notes that repairs for these issues were completed on 19 February and 8 March 2021 respectively.
On the same day the resident again reported that rainwater was entering the property through the patio doors; that the lock to the patio door did not fit properly and all the windows seals were defective which caused draughts. The repair log does not give a completed date for these issues but the evidence suggests that the problem with the lock was resolved at the visit to the property in July 2021.
On 16 February 2021 the charity asked the landlord to look into the resident’s reports that the property was “excessively cold”.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord carried out an inspection of the guttering and found holes in the facia. It noted there were “no symptoms”.
Meanwhile in late February 2021, the landlord asked for a survey of the property as it had potential to become a legal disrepair case. In an internal email dated 3 March 2021, the landlord noted that the wider issue with these properties related to the “poor patio door installations”. It noted the doors should be inspected with a view to completing any necessary repairs to ensure the properties were secure and safe, and if necessary, to replace them if the only holding repairs could be made. The landlord’s legal team noted that the resident was trying to get repairs done at that time, rather than seeking compensation, and it agreed that a survey was the best way forward.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord issued a response to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedures for case reference 113166. It apologised for not responding within the agreed timescale explaining that had been mainly caused by staff absences. The main points were:
1. It had asked its window contractor to survey the windows to assess the condition and to check for draughts and water ingress. Once it had received the contractor’s report it would take appropriate action. (It is not clear if this window contractor was the installer of the original windows.)
2. It would check the radiators to ensure they were suitable and also check that the heating system was functioning correctly.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
The repairs log evidences on 5 March 2021 that a joiner should check the cladding and all mastic seals all around the property and a visit was arranged for 23 April 2021.
The resident reported that the toilet would not flush on 20 March 2021; the evidence suggests that this was resolved on 24 March 2021.
On 23 April 2021 a building surveyor (the building surveyor) who worked for the landlord drew up a specification of works for the property. These included:

Installing trim to missing areas to the front cladding.

Repairing the hall cupboard floor.

Relaying the loft insulation.

Cleaning the rainwater goods and fitting gutter guards.

Replacing the defective airbricks.

On 17 May 2021 the resident reported that she had been without a toilet for three days. The repair log evidences that this repair was completed on 29 June 2021; it does not note what action was taken.
On 18 May 2021 the resident asked for complaint 112473 to be escalated.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord issued a final response under its formal complaints procedures for case reference 113166. The main points were:
1. A gas engineer had visited the property to assess the heating system. They identified that the heating system was not heating to its full capacity and they put this right whilst at the property. They also noticed that some of the thermostatic radiator valves were missing and arranged to replace them.
2. It confirmed all radiators would have been correctly sized at the design stage of the property and this took into account the size of the windows, wall construction, insulation, floor slab construction and the size of the room.
3. It noted that it had repaired the wash and dry toilet at the property on 24 March 2021 following the resident’s reports that it was not working correctly. The landlord confirmed it would not replace an item that was not broken. It added that the floor around the toilet had a silicone seal that was functional; there was no need to replace the flooring around the toilet at that time.
4. The landlord said it would arrange an inspection to look at the guttering and facias and would carry out any resulting work in due course. An operative had attended on 1 March 2021 to assess the cladding and all mastic seals. A further inspection took place on 23 April where potential faults were identified and this work had been passed on to the major works team.
5. As this was a new build, it would ask the window contractor to investigate the issues the resident had raised about the windows and doors. It explained that, due to a misunderstanding, the window contractor had mistakenly attended the property to measure for new windows. The landlord said it would attend with the contractor to review the windows and doors to assess if any repair or replacement was required. It explained the contractor would consider all the issues she had previously raised including draughts and the doors letting in rainwater in at the bottom.
6. The landlord said that, as a result of this case, it would improve the information and process of enacting a defects liability warranty claim on new build developments. It added it was introducing clearer and better documented procedures to give faster responses.
7. The landlord noted it had offered the resident £150 to cover the additional heating costs she had incurred when she was experiencing problems with the boiler.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedures (under complaint ref: 112473). This was largely reiteration of the previous complaint response which I have not included here. The landlord explained its allocations policy which said that applicants or prospective members of their household who had engaged in behaviour which was considered unacceptable to the landlord, would not be qualifying persons. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 1 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that she would have to turn down the compensation payment as the boiler was not fixed until 8 March 2021 and said there were months were she had been left “to freeze”.
On 6 July 2021 the landlord noted that it had attended the property the previous day with the windows contractor. The contractor’s findings were that all the windows of the property were in good working order; a minor adjustment was made to the front door and it was left in good working order. However, the contractor had found several problems with the rear door: the cylinder lock was too short and was replaced that day and there was a small gap under the door frame which the landlord agreed to fill when the rear door was replaced.
The contractor noted the door had “minor bowing” which they said was due to the resident pushing a “significant amount of tissue paper” into the rebate of the door frame and door slab to try to minimise draughts. The landlord noted that the contractor believed that this tissue paper and DIY plastic trim had contributed to the bowing of the door and that this was not a latent defect and therefore not covered in the default warranty period. The landlord agreed that the door should be replaced and had arranged for a surveyor to visit to measure for one. The landlord subsequently decided not to replace the door because the bowing did not impact the safety or usability of the door and because it had been caused by the customer’s own actions.
On 19 July 2021 the resident reported that it would not flush properly. She added she had been left for a period of 11 days in total without a working toilet (five days then six days). Following this report, the landlord decided to replace the set and dry toilet for a standard toilet.
On 21 October 2021 the repairs log noted that the radiators in the property were “too small and need to be double”; it noted the radiators were “not heating up the property (as per repairs email). This Service has not seen that email. The repairs log evidences that the target date for that work was 2 December 2021; no completion date was given in that log.
On 22 October 2021 the building surveyor noted that he had visited the above property (in April 2021) and had drawn up a specification of works which would have gone through the normal process and been allocated. However, he noted that nothing appeared to have been raised in accordance with his specification. He asked the major works team to restore these works and allocate them.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord noted in an internal email the events that led to the property being offered to the resident. It noted that the property was advertised to applicants with an approved two-bedroom need with a medical/disability priority (physical) or need and applicants over 40 years old; preference to applicants with a medical/disability (physical) priority or need then applicants over 60 years old. It noted that preference was to applicants in Band B at the time (now band A). It noted further that the resident had bid this on the property on 28 February 2020 and was matched the following month pending transfer visit approval and an assessment by the disability housing advisors who advised the property was suitable in March 2020.
The landlord commissioned a report from an independent surveyor. This visit took place on 17 February 2022. The main findings were:
1. Defective seals to the windows.
2. Ingress of rainwater to front and rear doors.
3. Shower room floor required renewal.
4. Toilet soil pipe was unsealed.
5. Install new shower as shower “former” was too small and allowed water to escape into the hallway.
6. Isolated repairs to kitchen flooring.
7. Wall tiling defects.
8. Defective external cladding.
9. Gutters to be cleaned.
The report also recommended that thermal imaging as there was a potential lack of wall insulation. The report referred to an ordered schedule of works to remedy the issues identified.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said the landlord had taken some action such as putting a new window in the bedroom; however it had not been installed well and it was not completely secure. She said new double radiators had been installed also but they heated the exterior walls, not the room.
The resident explained that she had been without a toilet two extended periods (five then seven days) and had had to go to the local supermarket to use the toilet throughout that time as her poor health meant she could not lift heavy buckets of water to flush it, as the landlord had suggested. She added that the landlord had not done other repairs identified by the independent surveyor.
The resident said she wanted compensation; she added that she did not feel that the landlord had taken her concerns seriously, in particular her health problems. She said, at times, she had been “pushed over the edge” by the landlord and that when the landlord had housed her it had not taken her needs seriously.

Assessment and findings

The final responses referred to in this report also briefly covered the resident’s complaints about antisocial behaviour. As the resident has another complaint with this Service (case reference 202206301) which relates wholly to ASB, the Ombudsman has decided that this report will focus on the repair issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property including her understanding that it was in a noise-controlled area

The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable by explaining in its complaint response that it did not have criteria for a noise-restricted area and that it had not advertised the property as being one where tenants who had carried out ASB could not apply.
The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out repairs while the property was void in line with its new home standard. The evidence shows that the resident raised repair issues with the landlord after moving in and I have dealt with them in detail, below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repair issues including those relating to the heating system (including the radiators), front and rear doors, windows, toilet, cladding, guttering and the loft

For ease, I have broken down the different repair issues and will deal with them in turn.

Issues identified by the building surveyor in April 2021 including the cladding, guttering and the loft

The evidence suggests that the surveyor’s visit to the property in April 2021 came about as a result of the cladding and sealant issues that the resident had raised. The surveyor found various repairs that were required and drew up a specification of work (paragraph 34). This included repairs to the cladding, cleaning the gutters and fitting gutter guards and loft insulation. Some six months later, it became clear that those works had not been taken forward by the landlord. That was a service failure. The evidence did not make clear what, if any, action the landlord had taken to carry out these repairs and an order to do so has been made.
The failure to follow up on these repairs and the subsequent delays in completing them has caused obvious frustration and inconvenience to the resident. It also meant that she has incurred time and trouble pursuing these matters to bring about the necessary repairs.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. Where redress has been offered, the Ombudsman considers if this put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into its Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The impact on the resident of the delay in carrying out these repairs is likely to have not been severe because they were largely external and would not have had a day-to-day impact on the resident (with the exception of the loft insulation; this impact is dealt with later in the report). However, financial redress is appropriate here for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint which meant that the resident had to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman to resolve these matters. Compensation of £200 is appropriate redress here and reflects the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to resolve these matters in a timely way.

Front and rear doors

A few weeks after moving in, the resident started raising concerns about the patio doors at the front and rear. She had various concerns but, from autumn 2020, she reported rainwater coming in under both the front and rear doors. The landlord did not act appropriately here. While it had clear responsibility for these doors under the tenancy agreement, there is little evidence it initially took meaningful action to remedy these leaks. That was a service failure.
The repair log gave dates for when some repairs were completed; however, in the absence of detail of the work the landlord completed, along with repeated concerns being raised by the resident, it is difficult to reach a conclusion that meaningful repairs had been undertaken with regard to the doors (and windows -which are dealt with separately, below). A recommendation has been made for the landlord to expand its repairs log to allow more detail to be provided about the repairs undertaken. This will give the landlord further evidence to support complaints made against it and also assist this Service in our investigations.
After the resident made a complaint, the landlord agreed to have a survey of the doors (and windows). By this time the landlord had identified that there was a problem with the “poor patio door installations”. There was further delay in arranging a survey as the contractor had misunderstood its brief.
The contractor identified several problems some of which it remedied while at the visit. However, it found “minor bowing” on the rear door which it said was due to the resident’s own actions.
In this case, given that this was a new build property older than two years, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have approached its new build warranty holder for an independent view, rather than approach its window contractor. This would likely have ensured that the resident’s concerns were considered fully.
The landlord initially agreed to replace this door but later changed its mind as its considered it was safe and useable. Given the landlord’s own concerns about the poor installation of these doors and the fact that the contractor had not addressed the issue of rainwater seeping under the doors (which was the focus of the resident’s reports), that decision was not reasonable. The independent survey in February 2022 identified that the ingress of water through the front and rear doors was continuing.
As a result of the lack of robust action by the landlord to try to resolve the ingress of rainwater, the resident has lived with leaking doors for almost two years. The resident told this Service that the landlord had taken no action to address the repairs issues identified by the independent surveyor. The landlord failed in its obligation to keep these doors in proper working over a long length of time and that is a serious service failing.
It is evident that the issues relating to the doors has had a detrimental impact on the resident and her daughter. Despite the landlord recognising that its service had been lacking and improvements were required, it did not consider financial redress for the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges the frustration felt by her at the landlord’s lack of action and understands why she considers the landlord did not take her concerns seriously. Financial compensation is appropriate here and this is considered below.
This Service notes the landlord identified that it had not handled the resident’s reports of repairs as well as it might have done by giving an undertaking in its complaint handling that, as a result of this case, it would improve the information and process of enacting a defects liability warranty claim on new build developments. It added it was introducing clearer and better documented procedures to give faster responses; however, the landlord did not consider the impact of that failure on the resident and did not provide further detail of those procedures to the Ombudsman. An order has therefore been made below.

Heating system

In its complaint handling the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced problems with the boiler in the property. The evidence suggests that this period was in February to March 2021, after a report on 3 February 2021. In its complaint response of 20 May 2021, the landlord offered the resident £150 to cover those additional costs. This Service has not seen evidence of the additional costs incurred but that sum does not appear unreasonable for that period.
However, there was a wider issue with the heating in the property. The resident started reporting that the radiators were not properly heating up the property in the autumn after she moved in. The landlord gave assurances in its complaint response of 20 May 2021 that the radiators were the correct size for the property. However, five months later, in October 2021, the repairs team noted the radiators were not the correct size.
There was a failing by the landlord here to investigate whether the radiators were the correct size. While it might have been presumed that the building company would have installed the correct size radiators, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have verified that itself when the concern was first raised. That was another service failing which had a significant impact on the resident.
The resident told this Service that, although the radiators have been replaced with larger ones, their heat was heating the walls, rather than the room. A recommendation has been made, below, for the landlord to investigate this and take steps, if appropriate, to remedy this matter.

Windows

The landlord’s actions here were not appropriate because it did not take action when the resident first raised concerns about the window seals in October 2020. After she had raised the matters again some months later, the landlord agreed for a survey to be carried out. The Ombudsman has previously made a finding about the appropriateness of approaching its window contractor, rather than the new build warranty holder for an independent view and that applies here also.
The contractor found that there were no defects with the windows. (It is not clear from the evidence what action it took to identify draughts from the windows.) That was contradicted by the independent survey some months later who found there were defective seals. The landlord has a responsibility for the windows under the tenancy agreement; its delays and failure to seek independent assessment of the windows was another serious failing.
The Ombudsman notes that, since the resident completed the formal complaints procedure, the landlord has replaced one window which the resident has concerns about. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to look into the installation of this window. An order has been made for the landlord to remedy the repairs highlighted by the independent surveyor.
The landlord’s failure to take robust action to investigate the ineffective doors, windows and radiators has had an evident effect on both the resident and her daughter. They have had to spend two winters since moving into the property which was colder than it should have been as a result of draughts from the windows and doors and radiators that did not heat the room adequately. That would have been made worse by the fact that the loft insulation had not been re‑laid as it should have been (paragraph 65). Further they had to live with leaks of water entering the property under the front and rear doors.
Financial compensation of £1700 is appropriate here for the distress and inconvenience as well as the frustration that that the resident’s concerns were not been given appropriate attention. This sum is made up of £500 for both the impact of the draughty windows; £500 for the impact of the incorrectly sized radiators and £700 for the water ingress under the front and rear doors. This sum takes into account the vulnerability of the resident and her belief that the landlord did not take her concerns seriously about the cold in the property over a long period of time.

The toilet

The resident first reported problems with the wash and dry toilet in March 2021 which took four days to resolve. The repairs log evidences that a problem reported on 17 May 2021 was resolved in late June 2021. The landlord’s handling of the toilet repairs was not appropriate as it did not complete the repairs within the timescale for an emergency repair. While it is reasonable that the repair of a specialist toilet might take longer than a standard toilet, there is no evidence that the landlord considered alternative arrangements for the resident or checked with her to see if she required any assistance.
The impact on the resident here was clear it is evident that distress and inconvenience would have been caused to her and her daughter by not being able to use a toilet within their own home. Financial compensation of £220 is appropriate here for the impact of the landlord’s failings.
The series of significant service failings outlined above have had a seriously detrimental impact on a vulnerable resident. The landlord failed to provide a service in line with its obligations under the tenancy and had disregard for good practice in dealing with the defects highlighted by the resident. For these reasons it is considered that there was severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the various repair issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property including her understanding that it was in a noise-controlled area.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of various repair issues including those relating to the heating system (including the radiators), front and rear doors, windows, toilet, cladding, guttering and the loft.

Reasons

The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns about her understanding that the property was in a noise-controlled area.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s various repair reports were not appropriate. In particular it failed to follow up on a specification of works ordered by the surveyor in April 2021 and failed to follow up reports of defects at the property in an appropriate way by engaging the new build warranty holder for an independent view. The landlord also did not act appropriately when the resident reported a toilet that would not flush properly. All this supports the resident’s view that the landlord did take her concerns seriously. These serious failings amount to severe maladministration.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall carry out the following orders within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of the housing management team to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,120 made up of:
  1. £200 for the time and trouble pursuing the repairs that were identified on 23 April 2021.
  2. £500 for the impact of living in a property over two winters with incorrectly sized radiators.
  3. £700 for the impact of living in a property where the front and rear doors allowed rainwater to seep in.
  4. £500 for the impact of living in a property where the windows were draughty over two winters.
  5. £220 for the impact of not having a flushable toilet for a total of eleven days.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £150 for the additional heating costs in early 2021 (if it has not done so already).
4. Ensure that all the repairs from the specification of works from 23 April 2021 are completed.
5. Carry out the necessary repairs identified by the independent surveyor in February 2022.
6. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with details of the actions undertaken to improve the information and process of enacting a defects liability warranty claim on new build developments.
7. Consider the findings in this report to identify if staff training or any other action is required in both relation to reports of repairs, defects and customer service. To feed back that learning to the Ombudsman within four months of the date of this report with details of steps it has taken to prevent these failings reoccurring.
8. Share this report is shared with the landlord board or equivalent.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Investigates the resident’s concerns that the new radiators are heating up the walls, rather than the rooms, and take action to remedy this.
2. Looks into the resident’s concerns about the newly installed bedroom window.
3. Consider having an independent survey of any newly installed windows and doors to ensure that the quality of the installations is appropriate and to share this with the resident.
4. Amends its repairs log to include a column about what action it took to resolve the issues reported.