Optivo (202016662)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016662

Optivo

23 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of the property since 3 March 2017. The landlord has described the property as a two-bedroom ‘upper floor flat’.
The lease agreement obliges the landlord to:
1. keep the building insured against loss or damage and make a claim as soon as reasonably practical against the insurers if the building is damaged
2. maintain and repair external parts, including the roof, balconies and walls and windows on the outside of the building.
The lease agreement requires the resident to:
1. pay rent and service charges
2. keep the interior of the property, including walls and ceilings, in good condition except in respect of damage by insured risks.
The lease agreement sets out that if any part of the property is damaged by any risk covered by the landlord’s insurance ‘so as to be rendered unfit for use’ then the rent shall be suspended until the property is again fit for use.
The landlord’s home ownership policy shows that if a resident needs to vacate their property to allow works to proceed, they are responsible for finding and funding alternative accommodation. It adds that building insurance may cover the cost of this if the need to vacate the property is because of an insured peril and that, in exceptional circumstances, it may use its replacement homes policy.
The landlord’s replacement homes policy explains that it may assist residents with a ‘decant’ to allow for repair works but that the resident would still be liable for rent and service charges on their main home.
The landlord has a complaints resolution policy that sets out that residents can make complaints within six months of an issue happening. It allows for a two-stage complaints process with responses offered within 10 working days at stage one, followed by a review panel stage where the landlord is required to advise residents within 10 working days if it does not intend to conduct a full review.
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows it can award compensation for failures to repair but that claims should be made within three months of the failure. There is potential for compensation awards for loss of accommodation where the landlord is responsible but the policy sets out that it is not for matters that are the fault of a third party nor for insurance and personal injury claims.
The resident and his wife have both corresponded with the landlord during the period covered by this complaint. All correspondence will be referred to as being from ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.
It is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate historic issues that have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service cannot therefore decide on the handling of leaks at the property prior to December 2019 – nevertheless, these events have been summarised below for context.

Summary of Events

There were two leaks into the property during the winters of 2017/18 and 2018/19. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the company that had built the block (the ‘developer’) took responsibility for the repairs while the landlord advised the resident to make building insurance claims on both occasions.
A new leak was reported by the resident and his neighbour from mid-December 2019. They reported this to the developer and correspondence between these parties indicates that the following happened over subsequent weeks:
1. the resident said that insurers had advised them to approach the developer prior to making a claim
2. the leak was reported to have been tracking out of a light switch
3. the developer arranged for a ‘waterproof specialist’ visit on 20 December 2019 but said that further action would not be possible until January 2020
4. the developer provided the resident with a contractor report on 6 January 2020 and said that the specialist would return on 13 January 2020
5. four inspections were arranged by the developer during mid to late January 2020, including a coloured smoke test.
The landlord was initially involved as early as 20 January 2020 when it wrote to the resident to request photographs of the leak damage.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2020 and asked about the possibility of re-housing while repairs were undertaken. It was added by him on the following day that there was now extensive damage to plasterwork and mould growth to walls and carpets. The landlord attended the property on 7 February 2020 to review the situation.
The developer advised the resident on 4 February 2020 that there were several weak areas in a membrane and around windows that had been corrected and that it intended to apply flashing where waterproofing terminated into brickwork and would then test ‘cavity trays’. The resident replied on 10 February 2020 – he advised that the leak was ongoing and had spread through the flat (this information was separately passed to the landlord).
The landlord raised the resident’s concerns with the developer on 11 February 2020 and obtained confirmation that the developer’s contractors were conducting further testing at the property that day.
The developer advised the resident on 12 February 2020 that cavity trays within the walls were failing and added on 17 February 2020 that it would apply felt over the brickwork pending an action plan to complete brickwork repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2020. He reported that there were now no electrics in the kitchen, alarms had been removed for safety reasons and the flat was essentially uninhabitable so they needed to be moved out immediately.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 February 2020. It provided a copy of the insurance cover and told the resident that its insurance team had recommended that the resident contact its building insurers who would deal with the matter.
The resident advised the developer on 19 February 2020 that he had been in contact with the building insurers who had sent a loss adjuster to file a report but they had advised that the matter would need to go through the developer’s insurer. The resident forwarded this correspondence to the landlord on the same date.
The loss adjuster for the landlord’s insurer rejected a claim on 20 February 2020 on the grounds that damage to the property was caused by a defect to the building brickwork and cavity tray so the matter would need to be referred to the developer.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails in late February 2020 – these show that the resident had been placed in hotel accommodation in the last week of the month and that he had asked the landlord for assistance with the claim against the developer.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 March 2020 – it said it had spoken to the developer’s insurance adviser who confirmed the case was being reviewed. It added on 9 March 2020 that the adviser had confirmed it would engage with the developer and put their insurers on notice. Emails between the landlord and adviser on this date show that the developer had accepted responsibility for a defect and there is evidence that the landlord chased progress on a couple of further occasions that month.
The resident asked the landlord on 17 March 2020 to confirm what was happening about his temporary accommodation as the booking was due to end the next day. An email from the resident the following day indicated that there had been a discussion about a serviced apartment that was booked from 19 March 2020.
The landlord contacted the developer on 17 March 2020 to check whether water ingress had been stopped. The developer advised the same day that its bricklayer was due to complete works to make the property watertight that week.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 March 2020. It advised that it had liaised with the developer and their insurer, seeking updates on the claim and works carried out (it added on 24 March 2020 that it had obtained a point of contact at the developer’s insurer).
The resident advised the landlord on 19 March 2020 that the developer had told him that the property was close to being watertight so they intended to progress replacing ceilings and repairing walls. He asked the landlord to confirm that these works would include repairs he had previously discussed with it. The landlord replied on 20 March 2020 to advise that it had chased the developer on the schedule of works.
The landlord and developer exchanged emails during 20-24 March 2020 when the latter advised that it would not cover temporary accommodation costs for the resident as it was of the view that he could remain in the property. The landlord obtained confirmation on 23 March 2020 that the developer’s insurer was investigating the matter.
The landlord advised the resident on 26 March 2020 that it was not satisfied with the works proposed by the developer so had sent a revised list to them. It subsequently confirmed it would attend with the developer once pandemic restrictions allowed and told the resident a complaint would need to be made if he wished for rent and service charges to be waived. It explained that the resident would be liable for some accommodation cost and, given it had taken on the temporary accommodation charge, he would continue to be liable for rent.
The landlord sent an email to the developer’s insurer on 26 March 2020, seeking an update on the claim – they replied on 31 March 2020 to confirm they were still investigating. The landlord passed these details to the resident on 1 April 2020 so he could also chase progress if he wished.
The landlord recorded on 1 April 2020 that the resident wished to make a complaint about leaks into his property. It sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 2 April 2020 to advise:
1. it would respond to his claim by 16 April 2020
2. the leak had been found to be due to a latent defect which the developer had addressed so the roof was water tight but it could not expedite ‘making good’ works due to the pandemic
3. the temporary accommodation stay was due to expire within a week so it would arrange for an update on this.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails on 3 April 2020 when the latter advised that the temporary accommodation had been extended to 9 May 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2020 – it apologised for the delay and said a further update would follow by the end of April 2020. It noted that it had made a claim with the property developer’s insurer and a loss adjustor visit would be needed once pandemic restrictions allowed so the compensation claim would be suspended pending the outcome of the insurance claim.
The resident made reports to the landlord during 18-22 April 2020 of mould growth in his temporary accommodation property and problems with a further property they had been moved on to. The landlord’s records indicate that an alternative placement was located from 30 April 2020 and that the resident stayed back in his property for a week beforehand (with the landlord covering food expenses because cooking facilities were unavailable).
A loss adjuster approached the landlord on 27 April 2020 to introduce itself and advise that it had been appointed by the developer’s insurer to investigate the claim. The landlord advised the resident on 28 April 2020 that the developer’s insurer had appointed a loss adjuster and provided details of the damage to the loss adjuster on 4 May 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 May 2020 – it apologised for not being in touch and said it had chased a loss adjuster update. The resident asked the landlord on the same day to confirm who was now handling the repairs given the involvement of the insurance company. The landlord replied to explain that it wanted the loss adjuster to determine the works needed and that the developer’s repairs were still on hold due to the pandemic.
The resident asked the landlord on 19 May 2020 and 26 May 2020 to confirm the temporary accommodation situation as the placement was due to end on 6 June 2020. The landlord replied on 27 May 2020 to advise that it understood the placement had been extended to 9 July 2020 but the resident continued to chase confirmation of this over the following week.
The landlord advised the resident on 2 June 2020 that it was still chasing the loss adjusters and that it understood the developer was due to complete some roofing works that week.
The landlord escalated the case with the loss adjuster on 2 June 2020 and submitted a complaint to them on 5 June 2020.
The landlord advised the resident on 9 June 2020 that it had obtained feedback from the loss adjuster who was awaiting a quote from the developer. It noted that it had asked if an alternative contractor could submit a quote so it had more influence over the schedule of works.
The landlord’s records show that it was aware on 12 June 2020 that the developer was carrying out emergency works only and the loss adjuster was liaising with the developer on a quote for the works. It advised the resident on 16 June 2020 that it had liaised with the insurance company to obtain permission for its own contractor to provide a quote.
The landlord approached a contractor on 16 June 2020 to request that it quote for internal remedial works to the property.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 23 June 2020 to allow it to quote for internal repair works. It provided the proposed works schedule for internal remedial repairs and the related quote to the loss adjuster on 25 June 2020 and advised the resident on 1 July 2020 that the loss adjuster was due to make an approval decision by 7 July 2020.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails in late June 2020 regarding the potential for extending the temporary accommodation. The landlord confirmed on 30 June 2020 that it had requested an extension to 10 August 2020.
The loss adjuster requested further information from the landlord on 30 June 2020 regarding the condition of the property. The landlord advised the loss adjuster on 10 July 2020 that it wanted confirmation on the claim by 15 July 2020 given it had been with them and the insurer for more than four months. It said that it would otherwise arrange its own contractor to complete works and pursue a claim for these costs and the temporary accommodation charges.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 July 2020. It said it would arrange for its contractor to complete works if there was no response from the loss adjuster by 15 July 2020. It passed its contractor’s schedule of works to the resident on 16 July 2020 – this included plasterwork, electrical testing and decorations.
The developer advised the landlord on 20 July 2020 that cavity tray works had been completed and that it would conduct a water test once some sealing works were done.
The landlord’s records show it noted on 20 July 2020 that it had not received confirmation from insurers that the works would be covered and that it was taking steps to carry out the repairs itself anyway.
The landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 23 July 2020. It defined the complaint as follows:
1. there had been three leaks into the property over the previous three years which the landlord had taken on management of from January 2020 but had subsequently delayed in communications and resolving the matter
2. there had been short notice updates on where the resident would be living since being housed in temporary accommodation and the landlord had failed to empathise with the stress of the situation for the resident and his family
3. the landlord had failed to involve itself with the 2017 and 2018 leaks
4. the landlord had now appointed a contractor but the proposed schedule of works did not meet expectations
5. the landlord should complete works, including renewal of kitchen units, so that the property was restored to its 2017 condition
6. the landlord should award compensation for loss of use of the property, the failure to repair, delays and inconvenience caused.
The resident clarified on 26 July 2020 that he sought £23,437.24 compensation, made up of £12,750 for ‘mental turmoil’, £9,784.24 for rent and service charges reimbursement (up to date) and £903 for damaged items.
The landlord chased the developer on 31 July 2020 and 10 August 2020 for an update on the water test plans.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2020. It concluded that:
1. it apologised for the resident’s experience and the length of time taken to resolve the defect but advised its ‘aftercare team’ had been working to ensure the roof was fixed and keep the resident informed
2. it intended to carry out a dye test to ensure the roof repair had been successful but this had been delayed by the pandemic
3. its contractors were in process of putting together a schedule of works for the inside of the property but they had established no evidence of damage to the wall behind kitchen units
4. its policy was to pass building defects back to the developer to resolve and liaise with the resident, which it had done in 2017 and 2018, but the landlord had taken on responsibility to arrange the repairs (in discussion with the developer, insurers and loss adjuster) from November 2019 when the leak recurred
5. it offered £300 compensation which it said was in line with its compensation policy for inconvenience and failure to repair
6. it had arranged temporary accommodation in a serviced apartment and made 6-week bookings (in response to the resident’s claim for rent reimbursement)
7. it could pass the resident’s claim for the mental health impact of the matter to its insurers for a liability claim if the resident provided further information
8. the claim for damaged possessions was being dealt with via a claim to the developer’s insurers
9. it agreed to provide weekly updates in future and apologised if this had not been the case previously.
The resident asked the landlord for his complaint to be escalated on 11 August 2020 and provided a review panel request form on 18 August 2020. He asked to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. the compensation offer did not reflect what they had suffered over a period of three years
2. it was irrelevant that the landlord had paid for temporary accommodation costs, particularly given the landlord had advised that it would be claiming back costs from the developer’s insurers
3. he was still paying for his flat despite not being able to live there
4. he should be given further information on how to formally register ‘a claim for civil law related loss or injury against your insurance’ and an update on the ‘supposed claim’ that had made against the developer’s insurance.
The landlord chased the loss adjuster on 14 August 2020 – it advised that its contractor had gone into administration so would need the developer or their insurers to resolve the situation.
The landlord asked the developer on 17 August 2020 for a proposed start date and list of works. There were emails exchanged between the resident and landlord during mid-August 2020 where the landlord confirmed it was chasing progress with the developer.
The developer told the landlord on 19 August 2020 that it intended to start works on 28 August 2020 and take one week to complete them. It provided a list of works to the landlord on 20 August 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 21 August 2020 and said it would offer a response by 2 September 2020 to advise whether a review panel would be progressed. It also advised him that the developer had confirmed works would start on 28 August 2020.
The landlord chased the developer on 24 August 2020 and 2 September 2020 on the water test date and progress of works at the property. The developer advised on 3 September 2020 that most works would be done by the end of the week except for carpet fitting; the landlord passed the update on progress to the resident on 4 September 2020.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 7 September 2020. It said that its complaints policy only allowed it to consider events from the previous six months so it had not fully assessed events in 2017-18. It added that it had not escalated the complaint for a full review panel but concluded that:
1. works to remedy the leak were ongoing and it had responded each time the resident had reported a leak
2. when it was established that the leak required a ‘more serious repair’, it had arranged alternative accommodation for the resident but the pandemic had impacted progress and its appointed contractor had gone into liquidation
3. the developer had started works on 28 August 2020 and should complete them by 9 September 2020
4. there had been a delay in passing the case between departments and its home ownership team had needed to check if there was a latent defect
5. the compensation request from the resident was beyond that allowed within its compensation policy and it would not reimburse the resident for rent as per its replacement homes policy
6. it had covered the resident’s temporary accommodation costs and covered expenses for meals while he was in a hotel without cooking facilities
7. it provided an insurance form for the resident to claim for damages for ‘mental turmoil’ and signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for rain damage to his possessions
8. it awarded £800 compensation, made up of £500 for distress and inconvenience, £150 for expenses incurred by the resident in moving into temporary accommodation, £100 for a delay in passing the case to its aftercare team and £50 for ‘failure to repair’.
The loss adjuster wrote to the landlord on 11 September 2020 – it said it had closed the claim as the developer had rectified damages directly.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 September 2020 to advise the developer had told it that works were complete. It asked the resident to confirm if he was satisfied this was the case and if they were back in the property. The resident replied the same day to confirm he was back at the property and all works were complete except for a carpet which the developer was sorting out.
The resident subsequently advised this Service that he moved back into the property in September 2020, after being decanted in February 2020. He listed six properties that he had lived in during this period, including three hotel stays.
The resident advised this Service in March 2021 that he was seeking half of the rent and service charge for the period of two leaks, a full rent and service charge refund for the period he was not able to live at the property and compensation for the impact on his mental health.

Assessment and findings

There are aspects of the resident’s concerns that relate to the impact of his living conditions on his health. While this matter will have been a source of distress for him and his family, particularly given he could not live at his property from February-September 2020 and that leaks recurred over three years, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the complaint may have caused the resident.
The resident initially interacted with the developer about the leaks into his property from December 2019. However, the landlord was aware of the situation at least as early as 20 January 2020. Although the landlord had an obligation to maintain the external and communal parts of the block, the developer had already committed to resolve the leak by the time the landlord became involved (on the grounds that it was a defect-related issue) and so the landlord was not responsible for completing repairs at this point.
At the end of the complaints process, the landlord awarded £150 compensation for a delay in passing the matter to it ‘aftercare’ team and a ‘failure to repair’. It is unclear when this delay period was based on evidence seen by this Service and why it determined there had been a failure to repair. The landlord’s ‘aftercare’ team was involved from 20 January 2020 so the delay in its involvement was presumably between December 2019 to January 2020. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends compensation in this range for service failure that was of a short duration. Given this delay period was of less than a month and the landlord was not responsible for the leak repair, this represented an appropriate level of compensation.
The landlord’s initial response to the leak report over the following month was to obtain evidence of the damage caused, visit the property itself and raise the resident’s continued concerns with the developer. Given it was unclear at this time what the specific cause of the leak was and whether the developer’s early actions had resolved it, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer back to the developer when the resident reported the situation had worsened.
When it became apparent in mid-February 2020 that the damage to the property had become more serious and that the developer had advised that extensive repairs were needed, the landlord provided the resident with information on building insurance cover and decided to move him into temporary accommodation as requested. It was reasonable for the landlord to be informed by the outcome of the building insurance claim and to find alternative accommodation for the resident when the claim was refused and it was evident that the leak may not be quickly remedied.
The building insurance claim was rejected on 20 February 2020 on the grounds that the leak was a result of a building defect and that the matter should be resolved through the developer. This demonstrated that the landlord was not obliged to complete the repair and, after this decision, the landlord pursued a resolution through the developer and its insurance – this was a reasonable approach given it was not responsible for the leak.
The landlord’s home ownership policy indicates that the resident is usually responsible for finding and funding alternative accommodation or that the costs of temporary accommodation can be covered by building insurance. Although the landlord was aware that the building insurance claim had been rejected (so temporary accommodation costs would not be covered through this recourse), it nevertheless decided to provide alternative accommodation for the resident from late February 2020 and to cover the costs of doing so itself. Even after the developer said it did not agree that the property was uninhabitable and would not pay towards the temporary accommodation costs, the landlord continued to do so – this demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused, understood the impact of the leak on the resident’s living situation and that it applied discretion as its home ownership policy allowed.
The resident requested a reimbursement of his rent and service charges for the period when he was not at the property (February-September 2020). However, the landlord’s replacement homes policy is clear that a resident is liable for their rent and service charge obligations when they are placed away from their property in temporary accommodation to allow repair works. Further, although the lease agreement says that rent can be suspended when a property is ‘unfit for purpose’, this relates to circumstances when the cause was a risk covered by the landlord’s insurance – in this instance, the damage was not caused by a risk covered by the landlord’s insurance as the insurance decision of 20 February 2020 confirmed. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident’s rent and service charge liability was in accordance with its policy and the lease and therefore appropriate.
However, the landlord has accepted that there were failures in its management of the temporary accommodation over subsequent months. It had a decant provider who located placements on its behalf – these were initially in a hotel followed by a variety of properties. Some of these properties were reported by the resident to have their own repairs issues such as mould growth and this will inevitably have added to the distress the resident had experienced. Further, there were multiple occasions during February-September 2020 when the resident had to chase the landlord close to a prospective deadline date to check whether his placement was to be extended and the resident had to move to a variety of addresses over the seven-month period. This indicates that the landlord was not pro-active in its communications and failed to minimise inconvenience to the resident by securing a longer term placement in a single property. This will have caused the resident some uncertainty as to where he would be living from week to week – the landlord’s actions in this regard were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord recognised this failure through its complaints process when it apologised and awarded £500 for time and trouble, inconvenience and distress. It is not clear if this full amount was in recognition of the failures in management of the temporary accommodation but the landlord also awarded an additional £150 to cover costs that the resident may have incurred in moving to different properties. This total level of compensation is within the range that the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests for ‘considerable service failure’, including where it has meant ‘a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses…, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant’. Given the resident was required to chase updates on his temporary accommodation placements on several occasions, this was an appropriate level of compensation.
During the period March-June 2020, the landlord attempted to progress repairs by:
1. raising the claim with the developer and its insurers on several occasions
2. chasing the developer on making the property watertight, including checking and widening their works schedule
3. ensuring that it provided prompt information about the damage caused to the property within days of it being requested by a loss adjuster
4. chasing, escalating and complaining about the handling of the claim with the loss adjuster
5. securing permission from the loss adjuster to obtain its own quote for remedial works to the property and passing that quote to the loss adjuster within two days of receipt.

These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take given it needed to work with other parties to make the resident’s property habitable again.

In view of the landlord’s difficulties in compelling the loss adjuster to finalise the claim between March-June 2020, it decided to arrange for its own contractor to complete works. It was reasonable that it offered the loss adjuster a warning that this was its intention before it did so given it was not responsible for the building defect and resulting remedial works. Its decision on 20 July 2020 to appoint its contractor to complete the works demonstrated that it was resolution-focused and willing to finance works at its own cost in order to resolve the issue for the resident.
It became apparent in August 2020 that the contractor appointed by the landlord was no longer trading. This was unfortunate and likely contributed to a further delay of a couple of weeks but was not a service failure on the part of the landlord. It also responded reasonably to the situation by reverting promptly to the loss adjuster and the developer to again request that they put it right by restoring the resident’s property.
The landlord continued to chase progress with the developer during late August to early September 2020 to ensure remedial works to the property were prioritised. It passed on updates to the resident once it obtained them from the developer and continued to remain involved until the resident confirmed works had been completed by the developer and he had returned to the property in mid-September 2020 – these were again reasonable steps for the landlord to take given it was not directly responsible for managing the repairs.
The resident has reported to the landlord that some of his possessions were damaged by the leak. The landlord consistently recommended that the resident make insurance claims for this damage and advised him that the developer’s insurer was considering a claim. It is not clear what the outcome of this claim was but the landlord’s approach to refuse compensation was in line with its compensation policy which outlines that it is not to be applied in cases of damages and third-party responsibility – its signposting of the resident to recourse through an insurance claim was therefore appropriate.
In summary, the landlord was not directly responsible for resolving the leak that the resident reported to it from January 2020. Nevertheless, it sought to assist by liaising with the relevant parties such as the developer and insurance companies. It used its discretion to provide temporary accommodation for the resident in the meantime and its decision to continue charging rent and service charges was in accordance with the lease and relevant policy. It failed to pro-actively manage the temporary accommodation placement but its apology and compensation award represented reasonable redress for this failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.

Reasons

The landlord did not always communicate effectively with the resident or manage the temporary accommodation placements to reduce further inconvenience to him. However, the landlord has accepted and apologised for these service failures and its compensation offer was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £800 that it awarded in its final complaint response.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.