Peabody Trust 2018 (202006390)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006390

Peabody Trust

27 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs required to her property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 27 November 1995. The resident has a disability/vulnerability that the landlord is aware of. The property is a semi-detached house.
The resident has made reference to events as far back as 2008 regarding various repair issues. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This report will consider events from mid-2020 onwards on the basis of the available evidence of repair reports and communications made by the resident to the landlord, as well as the date the complaint was made, being 30 June 2020.
On 29 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord via e-mail with photos highlighting damage to a panel of her garden fence and gravel board, and of rubble falling into her neighbour’s garden. She also noted in this communication that the foundation of her patio was not sound and requested that a surveyor attend the property to carry out an inspection as there were a number of issues that she wanted to be addressed.
On 30 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident noting that a job had already been raised for these reports however the resident replied stating that this was related to a problem with the wall rather than the fence issue. The resident also requested that a formal complaint be raised, and the landlord logged this at its initial complaint stage. According to the landlord’s later stage one complaint response, these repair jobs were completed according to the landlord’s standards in the weeks following this.
On 28 September 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to note that there were outstanding repair issues at her property, including a boundary wall that had been rebuilt but that was impeding on the neighbour’s property, uneven front paving, a sinking patio due to issues with the foundation, fence panels in need of repair, problems with the shower screen, the front door not closing properly, repairs needed to cupboards, tile trim and panels in the kitchen, window repairs and repainting.
Following contact from the resident the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request it respond to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding repairs. It sought a response again on 26 October and 5 November 2020. On 25 November 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord noting that a complaint-handling failure had occurred.
On the same day, 25 November 2020, the landlord registered a formal complaint regarding the repair issues.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint noting that it had reviewed the contact and repair records in relation to the repair issues raised. It set out the following in response:
1. Following the resident’s reports of 29 June 2020, jobs were raised to address the repair issues including the garden fence, gravel board and patio foundation. A complaint had also been raised in response to the resident’s request. The landlord’s review of the records demonstrated that its staff had focused solely on the jobs already raised and did not seek to enquire about further issues the resident said she had.
2. Upon review of the jobs that the resident’s property had open in the landlord’s system around the end of 2019 and early January 2020, it was observed that repairs had been raised for all of the issues that had been reported that needed addressing. It noted that a surveyor and several contractors had attended on various occasions. Some of the reported repairs had been finalised but in other instances, the parties were not in agreement on the solution and these had since stalled. The records demonstrated that there were delays in completing some repairs due to the change in contractor area responsibility.
3. It acknowledged that there had been service failure in not communicating with the resident effectively about her continued dissatisfaction and not following through on some of the repairs. In other instances, it acknowledged that the resident felt the issues had not been dealt with satisfactorily even though they were recorded as completed. It apologised that it had been unable to resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns about the repairs.
4. It considered a sensible way forward would be for it to arrange a surveyor to attend the property to carry out a full assessment of the issues the resident had reported as needing attention. It acknowledged this may feel like the process was going backwards and acknowledged that it would cause some further frustration and inconvenience for the resident, but felt this was the correct approach in the circumstances. It noted that once it had addressed or resolved any remaining issues it would consider any compensation due in line with its compensation policy.
On the same day, 27 November 2020, the landlord contacted its surveyor to arrange an inspection. On 7 December 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that an inspection had been booked for 15 December 2020.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. It set out the findings for each of the issues raised by the resident:
1. Regarding the wall which had been rebuilt but impeded on the neighbour’s property: A gravel board had moved slightly and needed to be re-set. Access was noted to be via the neighbour’s garden.
2. The uneven front paving was inspected and thought to be within acceptable tolerances. There was no risk identified in its state at the time and therefore no works were required.
3. The patio was within acceptable tolerances despite the resident’s concerns that it was sinking, and there were no trip hazards identified. As such it was not in a state of disrepair and therefore no further work was required.
4. The fence panels were in satisfactory condition, and apart from the gravel board previously identified no further issues were present. It noted a reactive repair could be created to install the gate to its post.
5. The toilet was within acceptable tolerances and no further work was required.
6. In response to the resident’s reports that the shower door did not close fully, it noted that there was a small gap but that it did not make a material difference, as the gap was over the bath. Nevertheless it noted a reactive repair could be created as it was not a big job to fix.
7. The front door was considered to be in satisfactory condition and not presenting any issues. It was noted that the letter box cover had fallen off and that this could be fixed under a reactive repair.
8. A reactive order could be raised for the tile trim in the kitchen to be re-fixed and sealed around the electrical units. The units were noted to be in an acceptable condition.
9. The windows were inspected and found to be in satisfactory condition.
10. No paint issue was identified in the back bedroom, and the ceiling cracks were considered to be within acceptable tolerances meaning no further work was required.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it set out a summary of the surveyor’s findings and made the following points in response to the complaint:
1. It noted that the repairs could all be raised as identified by the surveyor, and it would monitor these through to completion to ensure the work was finalised to an acceptable standard.
2. It understood that the resident did not accept the recommendations and findings of the surveyor’s report, on the basis that she felt the surveyor did not dedicate enough time to carrying out a thorough inspection. The resident had reported that the landlord had previously identified problems with the wall and her own tradesmen identified that one of the pillars had been built on top of a fence panel. She also stated that it had previously been agreed that a new front door was required because it was bowed, but the surveyor did not have a spirit level to check this. Overall the resident felt the surveyor had rushed through the inspection and failed to listen properly to the resident’s concerns.
3. It noted that it was only able to act on the feedback and recommendations that had been provided by its surveyor as it was not technically qualified to question their findings. Nevertheless it noted that the resident had requested that the landlord not raise any repair jobs at that time because the resident wished to formally escalate the case to the second stage of the complaint process so that the issues could be reviewed further.
4. In response to the resident’s statement that she had had accidents due to trip hazards on the paving which required her to seek medical treatment, it directed her to provide the relevant information to its insurance team with an explanation of why she thought it was responsible and providing details of the incidents and medical impact on her.
The landlord’s internal emails on the same day noted that there were a number of repairs that had been raised previously that the resident considered not to have been resolved. It noted that some of the repairs had been advised to have been done and some the parties were not in agreement about. It noted that it seemed sensible to finalise the matter with the results of the surveyor’s inspection on 15 December 2020.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident asking her to clarify the review grounds for the escalation request, noting that with the Christmas break and pandemic affecting its services it would aim to respond within 20 working days, being by 22 January 2021.
On 5 January 2021 the resident responded to the landlord setting out the reasons for her complaint escalation request which was largely about the issues addressed at the surveyor’s inspection on 15 December 2020. She set out multiple repair issues that she considered to be outstanding as well as concerns about the behaviour of the surveyor at the appointment.
1. The surveyor attended and kept leaving to check on his vehicle, had not undertaken the survey in the necessary amount of depth and limited his visit to only 15 minutes.
2. The resident stated she had tripped and fallen over the paving in the front garden on multiple occasions, though the surveyor did not consider there was any risk identified.
3. The front door had been damaged during a break-in in 2018, and had been authorised to be replaced but this work stalled when the landlord’s contractors changed.
4. In June 2017 the cables on the house had been removed during works to insulate the property with cladding, and were not put back in the same place. Additionally the contractors had moved the outdoor aerial at the same time which had affected the resident’s ability to access some television channels.
5. The shower screen wasn’t fitted correctly and wouldn’t catch when closed. The bath panel was water damaged and the resident said the landlord never followed up agreed work to replace it. The hand basin tap was missing a part following previous works.
6. They had not been able to view the back bedroom due to the resident’s daughter being in there, but the resident stated the painting work was “patchy”.
7. The resident felt the landlord had not properly inspected the wall in the garden, and was rude to her when discussing the history of the issue.
8. The kitchen had previously been replaced in 2017 due to it being severely damaged by a leak and ongoing damp. The resident that she had been decanted for approximately 8 weeks over this period.
9. The surveyor did not check the windows, nor the back door which was not staying closed unless it was locked and had a bad draught coming through it. She noted the windows all had significant condensation. She stated that the landlord confirmed the windows and doors would be replaced in 2019, but that this work hadn’t been undertaken yet.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord provided its interim stage two complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It did not re-outline the surveyor’s recommendations on each of the jobs that had been suggested following the inspection as these were in dispute. It noted the resident did not accept the recommendations and findings of the surveyor’s report having informed the landlord of her view that the surveyor did not carry out a thorough inspection. As the landlord’s staff member was not present at the surveyor’s visit it noted it was unable to determine if each issue was given sufficient attention.
2. In the alternative, it offered to send another surveyor to carry out a further inspection in the presence of a staff member and the resident, which could be done virtually.
3. Given there remained a dispute as to the scope of the repairs, it considered it premature to make a full compensation offer at that time. However it noted that there had been shortcomings identified so far in the process, including delays in the handling of the complaint which had been caused by the impact of the pandemic on the department responsible. On this basis it offered the maximum amount of £100 to the resident, plus an additional £50 taking into account the accumulative impact of all of the complaint-handling issues combined. This was in addition to £100 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience stemming from the overall por communication and the surveyor’s behaviour which it considered failed to meet the expected standards. The total offer of compensation was therefore £250. Feedback had been provided to staff and the surveyor to improve performance in future.
On 29 March 2021 the landlord’s emails noted it had been agreed to have a different surveyor attend the property, along with a member of the landlord’s team and a representative of the contractor so that a second opinion report could be drafted.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord’s internal emails of that date noted that it did not consider it appropriate another surveyor to attend the property when it would likely result in the same findings. A review had been carried out of the report, noting that the property remained in a satisfactory state of repair, and it considered that the repairs set out as possibly needing to be addressed were probably suggested as some form of conciliatory or goodwill gesture. Nevertheless on 6 April 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for a supervisor to be sent out for the inspection so that it could finalise the list of repairs that needed to be attended to.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord’s internal emails stated that it was confirming the gesture of good will repairs that the original surveyor had advised should go ahead following the initial inspection.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and identified various jobs to be completed which were communicated to the landlord on 26 April 2021. These included:
1. digging up/removing loose front garden patio tiles and replacing them with slab paving
2. removing and rebuilding the rear garden wall
3. re-bedding and levelling the paving blocks next to the shed
4. overhauling the back patio door lock
5. fixing trims, seals and panels in the kitchen
6. unblocking the bathroom wash hand basin
7. re-aligning the shower screen and renewing the damaged vanity unit, and
8. overhauling the window handles.
It also discussed some other issues with the resident on site, including that the front door was working fine but might need an ease and adjust, no damp was found or mould in the hallway, and that there was no disrepair to any of the window seals or the bathroom tap.
On 6 May 2021 the resident sought an update from the landlord as to what works would be happening and when, as well as the progress of the final complaint response. On 14 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out the list of repairs that needed to be carried out, being the list reported on 22 April 2021.
On 19 May 2021 the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident in which it listed the repairs identified as being necessary at the 22 April 2021 inspection. It set out the following:
1. It acknowledged that there were some discrepancies between the two reports, which could partially be explained by the length of time spent at the visits i.e. 15 minutes at the original one and approximately 40 minutes at the next. It noted it could also be partially explained due to the high amount of repairs, and that some discrepancy would not be unheard of when looking at so many different things. Repair jobs had at that point been raised for all of the issues that were reported to the Ombudsman.
2. Records indicated that there were some delays due to the change in contractor area responsibility. It was clear there was a service failure in not communicating effectively with the resident about her continued dissatisfaction and not following through on all of the repairs. There were other issues that the landlord continued to have been resolved, but the resident disagreed.
3. At the second inspection, further issues were identified that were not part of the original complaint. Nevertheless it had raised a work order for all the issues identified at this visit and it noted it would contact the resident within seven days to organise appointments for the work, and would monitor the repairs listed in the complaint response until they were completed.
4. It had taken on board the resident’s comments about the conduct of the surveyor and these had been fed back appropriately. It stated that it had acted proactively in arranging for another surveyor to attend, who spent more time inspecting and gave the resident additional opportunity to discuss her concerns. It apologised again for her dissatisfaction with the initial inspection.
5. Various repairs from the 22 April 2021 inspection had been reported in the six months prior to the complaint being logged but were not progressed through to completion properly. It noted that since March 2020 its ability to carry out its repair service had been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. As the new contractor had settled into work, it anticipated service would be much more efficient in future.
6. Regarding its complaint handling it noted that the issues were initially raised as an expression of dissatisfaction and it focused “solely on a job already raised” and did not seek to enquire about the further issues the resident said she had. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its response, and that it needed to be clearer with residents about where in the process a complaint was up to when they requested updates. Since this time, it had implemented a new process to monitor such cases, provide clearer communication and limit the length of time a case can be at the early resolution stage before it is automatically escalated to the formal stage one. There were also delays in providing the stage two response, primarily due to a large increase in review cases it had been receiving which had impacted on its resources.
7. It made a final compensation offer to the resident of £600, consisting of:
  1. £200 for complaint handling, being made up of the maximum available to offer under its policy as well as a discretionary element of £100.
  2. £400 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, being again the maximum available to offer under its policy.
On 20 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that during the inspection the landlord had agreed that the front door insert would be replaced and the back bedroom door frame would be repaired. On the same day the resident wrote to the Ombudsman stating that the complaint response did not include reference to some further works the surveyor had confirmed verbally to the resident would be done. Following communication between the parties, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the issues with the door had been addressed as of 28 May 2021.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord will:
1. Keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including
  1. Drains, gutters and external pipes
  2. The roof
  3. Foundations, outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window frames and glass, including necessary painting and decorations, chimneys, means of access including pathways and steps
  4. Garages and external stores
2. Repair to a reasonable standard the structure and exterior of any building, including boundary walls and fences of which the premises form part if, and only if, but only if, the disrepair adversely affects the physical condition or safety of the premises or common parts. It will also keep in reasonable repair and working order any entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passages, rubbish chutes, communal lighting and other common parts or communal amenities or facilities.
3. Keep in good repair but not be liable to paint or decorate the interior of the premises including internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, hinges, door jambs, thresholds, floors, ceilings and plaster work. The landlord is not liable if the repair becomes necessary through the fault of the resident, or falls under their responsibilities as set out later in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its process for responding to complaints:
1. An initial contact can be recorded as an expression of dissatisfaction which the landlord will attempt to resolve promptly without the need for recording a formal complaint. The decision to consider the contact in this way or instead as a formal complaint will be considered based on a risk-based approach looking at the circumstances of the complaint and resident.
2. A formal stage one complaint will be responded to within 3 working days. If the outcome does not require any remedial action or a need to obtain further information, then a response to the complaint addressing all the issues must be sent as soon as possible but no later than 10 working days. In circumstances where this is not possible, the resident will be provided with an explanation as to why, an update on the case’s progression and an expected response date.
3. The resident has 10 working days to escalate the complaint. The request will be acknowledged within 3 working days, and a formal response provided within 15 working days.
4. A request for a service, such as the first report of a repair, will not be dealt with through the landlord’s complaints process. All complaints should be submitted to the landlord within six months of when the event occurred or it became known to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that compensation is paid when a resident has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on its part of it failed to carry out a service within its published guidelines. Examples of this include a temporary loss of amenities including heating, hot water, mains water and power within its control, inability to use part of a property, a failure to meet agreed standards of service and poor complaint-handling.
The policy notes that the landlord may consider practical action to resolve a dispute to remedy an adverse effect that has been caused by the service failure instead of providing financial compensation.
The landlord will not consider compensation in personal claims or where the fault is something it is not responsible for, where a claim can be made on home contents or building insurance, where there were circumstances beyond its control i.e. storm damage or flooding from extreme weather or where work is required at a property and full communication of an action plan has been provided in advance and the landlord has kept to this plan.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the repair reports

The resident’s complaint is that the landlord has left various repair jobs outstanding for significant periods of time. She has taken the position that she previously made reports and potentially even raised complaints prior to June 2020 that were not properly addressed. However the landlord’s repair records document the resident’s communication and line up with the position it took in its complaint responses about what it was aware of and when. While this is not to suggest that the resident’s recollections are inaccurate, the Ombudsman must rely on the documentary evidence available to it in determining the case, particularly in circumstances where the two parties expressly disagree on when repair reports were first raised. It follows from this that the landlord can only respond to repair issues that it has been made aware of.
The resident’s escalation request specifically referenced repair issues that had occurred some time before a formal complaint was raised with no evidence that these had been previously reported. This is supported by the landlord’s internal communications which noted them to be largely new issues.
The landlord has noted that while it was aware of some of the outstanding repair issues in place as of when the complaint was initially raised in June 2020, a number of these were only raised during the complaint process. Additionally, the landlord has set out in its complaint responses that of the repair issues that were outstanding at that time, some had been resolved to its satisfaction though the resident did not consider them to be finalised, and in other cases the work remained unfinished given the parties could not agree on the scope of the necessary works. It was understandable that further work was not being undertaken given the scope had not been agreed and the landlord was satisfied that it had fulfilled its obligations regarding the reports it had received up until that point. However it would be expected that the landlord would be taking steps to find a way to resolve the dispute given it was aware the resident did not agree that all of the repair issues were resolved.
In the absence of agreement on what did need to be undertaken, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging a surveyor to attend the property and consider what work was outstanding on 15 December 2020. When the results of this appointment were challenged by the resident, it discussed the matter with the original surveyor who maintained it had been thorough in its assessment and stood by said results, even going so far as to say the property was largely in good repair and the recommended works were a good will gesture. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor in this way.
Nevertheless its decision to arrange for another inspection to go ahead was a sensible attempt at bringing the matter to a resolution. Considering all the circumstances of the case and particularly the lack of clarity around what work the landlord was expected to do, it was appropriate that the landlord gathered a finalised list of exactly what repair works were needed at the property on the basis of this second inspection, given its records did not demonstrate that it had failed to undertake any necessary work prior to this. It specifically noted in its complaint response that at the inspection, there were further issues identified by the resident that had not previously been reported and were not part of the original complaint that was logged. It nevertheless responded appropriately by raising various new repair jobs in line with the issues the resident raised during the inspection as well as its own consideration of these by the various contractors and staff present.
There were certainly failings in the landlord’s repair process, largely based around its poor communication with the resident. The landlord should have kept the resident better updated on the position it had taken that there were no outstanding works following the work undertaken on the jobs reported in June 2020 given the amount of contact it received from the Ombudsman requesting a formal complaint response up until November 2020, even if the resident could have been predicted to disagree with the response. The landlord also acknowledged that there were some delays in completing works due to a changeover in contractor responsibility.
Some of the period in which the landlord was delayed in arranging inspections and carrying out the works was during the UK lockdowns implemented by the government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This included the period of November 2020 and a number of months in early 2021. It was also noted in the stage one complaint response that the resident had requested the landlord hold off on undertaking any repair work until the review complaint stage had been completed. Given the stage one complaint was provided on 18 December 2020, the escalation request received on 5 January 2021 and an interim stage two provided on 4 February 2021, there was no service failure for delay to repairs over this period given the landlord was acting in line with the resident’s request.
The offer of £400 compensation was appropriate in the circumstances because it recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays and lack of communication. The period between 30 June and 25 November 2020 demonstrated a substantial service failure by the landlord given the lack of response to both the resident and the Ombudsman, and this offer was adequate redress for this. Furthermore, the offer should be considered in combination with the landlord’s good faith decision to undertake each of the jobs identified in the second survey inspection, even though its original surveyor considered a significant number of these to be unnecessary and not giving rise to any obligation for the landlord to carry out the work.
As noted above, if there is no evidence of these other works that the resident submits the surveyor agreed to do verbally at the second inspection that were not recorded, these cannot be considered as evidence. Importantly, it is not for the Ombudsman to establish whether the conversation occurred, but rather if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports and complaints on the basis of the available evidence. The fact that the second inspection went ahead and the resident was given the chance to raise all of her concerns about repair issues in the property means there is minimal evidence to support that any further work is necessary.

Complaint-handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 June 2020. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in an attempt to get a response to the resident on multiple occasions in the months following this, specifically on 28 September, 16 October, 26 October and 5 November 2020. On 25 November 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord noting that a complaint-handling failure had occurred and issued a shadow order to this effect. At this point the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint, which was approximately five months after the resident had first raised the complaint and two months after the Ombudsman had requested a response which it followed up on multiple occasions with no progress.
While the landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not consider newly raised repair issues as part of a complaint, there is evidence that the resident was seeking a response to what she considered to be various historical outstanding repair issues. Though the landlord initially took the position that the repair issues complained about had already been addressed, the resident clarified that the previous responses had been specifically in relation to the wall, whereas she wished to raise repair reports and a complaint about a fencing issue. Regardless of the stance the landlord took in regards to this element of its policy i.e. whether this was the first reporting of repair issues or not, it was not acceptable for it to fail to make any contact with the resident to at least acknowledge the request and explain its proposed course of action.
The landlord took an appropriate step of offering compensation to the resident for the failings in its complaint-handling, being a total of £200 including both the maximum payable under its complaint-policy as well as a discretionary payment. Following the raising of the complaint, each of the stage one, interim stage two and final complaint response demonstrated that the landlord was attempting to progress and resolve the complaint by gathering information on what work was outstanding and what obligations it had to finalise this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of various repairs required to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its complaint-handling.

Reasons

In the absence of other evidence to support the resident’s position that she reported repairs that were not promptly addressed by the landlord, the evidence available indicates that following the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it responded appropriately by investigating the resident’s reports of repair issues. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging two separate surveyor attendances which gave the resident the opportunity to raise any repair issues in their entirety so as to work towards a resolution of the substantive issue of the complaint, and it was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyors to establish what works needed to be done. There was a recognised service failure for the landlord’s lack of communication and progression towards a resolution of the dispute prior to its complaint acknowledgement in November 2020, and this has been adequately responded to with a monetary offer of compensation and agreement to undertake various works at the resident’s request.
There were clear failings in the landlord’s complaint-handling process. The complaint was not promptly responded to, requiring both the resident and the Ombudsman to chase updates that were not forthcoming and eventually resulted in a shadow complaint-handling failure order being issue. The landlord has however recognised these failings and made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident to put things right. Following the acknowledgement, each of the complaint responses was provided in good time considering the landlord’s policy and the circumstances, and worked towards resolving the complaint.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendations:
1. The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident its previous offer of:
  1. £400 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of repair issues.
  2. £200 for the failures in its complaint-handling process.
The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the above recommendation being carried out. If the compensation has previously been paid, the Ombudsman will consider this recommendation to have been complied with.