The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Peabody Trust (202123955)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123955

Peabody Trust

6 February 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from the neighbouring property.
  2. The Ombudsman is also considering the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom flat on an assured tenancy, since 1993. The landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 November 2021 the resident reported a leak from the neighbour’s property above. An operative attended the same day and advised a repair needed to be carried out in the neighbour’s property as the leak was from the shower. The following day the leak got worse and another operative advised the resident it was an issue with the neighbour’s boiler and the neighbour’s flooring would need to be removed in order to access a pipe. The leak continued as the neighbour did not want their flooring lifted, so an electrician made the resident’s electrics safe.
  2. An operative attended on 21 November 2021 as the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed and said it required a full-day appointment to locate the leak.
  3. The resident complained to her MP, who wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2021 asking it to address her concerns about its handling of the leak. The landlord acknowledged the MP correspondence on 26 November 2021 and explained that it may take 10 to 15 working days to respond. An operative returned on 29 November 2021, removed the laminate in the neighbour’s hallway and located the leak from a pipe. It was isolated and repaired, but an operative needed to return to make good the area in the resident’s property. This work was planned for 8 December 2021 but when the contractor arrived the insulation was too wet to complete the job, so it installed a dehumidifier to dry the area and arranged to return on 17 January 2022. The landlord updated the resident’s MP on 9 December 2021 on the action taken.
  4. A further leak was reported on 11 December 2021 and a contractor attended to investigate. No leak was found but there was a high amount of condensation on the newly installed pipe, so it was insulated to stop potential drips.
  5. The resident contacted this Service to complain about the landlord. The Ombudsman notified the landlord on 2 February 2022 that the resident was making a complaint about its handling of repairs following the leak and the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 3 February 2022.
  6. On 1 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, as follows:
    1. The resident had had issues with follow on works (FOW) following a leak from the underfloor pipes in the flat above. Works had come to a stop due to the resident’s concerns about the materials being used (thickness of plasterboard), and the quality of the works. It felt that as long as the materials that were being used were fit for purpose, there was no reason for the works to come to a stop.
    2. It was going to rebook an appointment for works to resume once the resident checked their work rota and provided a suitable date and time. However, as no dates had been provided, and the original sub-contractor could no longer do the work, it had arranged with its contractor to attend on 30 March 2022. It would look at the quality of works to date, identify any outstanding problems, provide a schedule of works and advise what its next actions would be.
    3. It would continue to manage the outstanding issues and provide a supplemental response to the complaint once all FOW had been completed. It would also consider then whether compensation should be paid.
    4. “This letter is our final response at stage one of our complaints process. If you remain dissatisfied with my response to your complaint, please call or email me in the next 10 days so that we can discuss your concerns. If we’re still unable to agree a resolution, you’re then able to request to escalate your complaint to stage two, which is the final stage of our complaints process.”
  7. The landlord advised the MP on 4 April 2022 that the complaint sent on behalf of the resident had been set up as a stage 1 complaint that week and a complaint officer would be in touch with the resident.
  8. The landlord advised the resident on 7 April 2022 of the works that its contractor had confirmed would be started on 23 April 2022. The resident responded on 9 April 2022, challenging the scope of the proposed works and setting out the more comprehensive works she had previously been told would be needed. She asked the landlord to provide a detailed specification of the works and when each aspect would be carried out. She also explained that, at 8am the previous day as she was leaving for work, an operative had attended with no prior notice, to refit parts of her kitchen. She wanted it noted that people should not attend without her being given prior notice.
  9. The landlord explained on 11 April 2022, that the list of work it sent was the most up to date, and it would look in to why an operative had attended without notice. On the same day, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2, as she found the landlord’s responses to be “vague”.
  10. In response, the landlord said it was still trying to resolve the complaint at stage 1. It said the resident had been provided with a single point of contact and should have contacted them when the operative attended unexpectedly, and she should do so with any further issues. It said it could rebook the appointment with the operative, and the purpose of stage 2 of the complaints process was to review what had happened at stage 1. It still hoped to resolve matters at stage 1 but it would not prevent her from escalating the complaint if she wanted to.
  11. The resident confirmed she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2 on 13 April 2022. She said the list of works was not complete and the landlord had not said when the painting would be done, how long any of the works were expected to take or how the works would be co-ordinated. She needed this information as she would be expected to take time off work in order for the work to be carried out. She said the landlord’s response at stage 1 indicated the complaint was still being investigated, but also indicated it was a final response. The resident also made the following points:
    1. She was not sure how the landlord was going to monitor the work because it was only as a result of her monitoring previous work that she identified an issue with an operative refusing to remove water damaged plasterboard in the past.
    2. The kitchen work did not need rebooking until the flooring had been done, as had been agreed in the past.
    3. She had been getting ready for work so was not in a position to email about the operative attending unexpectedly, at the time.
    4. She noted it would consider compensation and said she had already submitted some receipts from when water was getting in to her flat, and she wanted recognition of the time things were taking.
  12. The landlord confirmed the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 on 19 April 2022. The resident then explained on 21 April 2021, that as well as acknowledging the delay, she wanted:
    1. The questions she raised at stage 1 answered.
    2. To be sent a copy of the outcome of the inspection and the FOW to be completed, along with timescales.
    3. To be provided with a response to the receipts she sent in, which were not acknowledged.
    4. Clarity on her compensation request.
    5. To know what was still being investigated.
    6. To know how the works would be monitored.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2022 and explained that, although she had been advised a stage 2 response should be sent by 10 May 2022, due to the bank holiday, the date it should have given was 11 May 2022. It apologised for the error but explained more time was needed in any event, in order to provide a full response. Therefore, it required a 10 working day extension, to 25 May 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  14. The landlord explained that works should have started on 23 April 2022, with works to the ceiling in the kitchen and hallway being done on 10 June 2022. It asked her to let it know if any other work was still outstanding.
  15. The resident told the landlord on 23 May 2022 that the floor tiles had not been ordered and the kitchen worktop and units had not been completed. She also said the contractor had left materials in the communal hallway since November 2021 and other material was left outside her door. This meant communal areas had not been cleaned properly, and she wanted this taking in to account with compensation.
  16. In the landlord’s response of 9 June 2022, it said the contractor was not aware of materials being left. It therefore asked for an up to date photo of this and it would get it taken away. It advised that a job to deal with worktops was recorded as cancelled by the resident on 26 January 2022. It asked the resident to clarify what she meant by needing floor tiles and that the kitchen units were not completed. Finally, it said that other works were still booked in for the following day.
  17. The resident responded the same day, in which she:
    1. Provided up to date photos and explained the contractor took photos of the rubbish left on 30 March 2022 and said it would arrange for it to be taken away.
    2. Explained she did not refuse access regarding the kitchen work. As explained at stage 1, the operative arrived with no notice when she was leaving for work.
    3. Said she was told by the contractor that it would inspect and repair the floor tiles before installing new units.
    4. Said she was upset that she was having to defend herself, and that she had had issues for 7 months and no light in the kitchen or hallway over that time.
    5. Advised that she was unhappy that she had to wait as a result of the neighbouring upstairs property being reluctant about having their laminate flooring removed, so operatives could get to pipework.
  18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 July 2022. It:
    1. Apologised for the resident taking time off work for missed appointments and having to complain.
    2. Said the rubbish left at the property would be removed within 4 weeks.
    3. Accepted she should not have been asked constantly to clarify matters and for it to have been on her to progress works.
    4. Provided the outcome of the inspection on 30 March 2022 and said in the next 8 weeks it would fit floor tiles, then fit the worktop and kitchen units and remove the rubbish in the communal area. It would also monitor the work being done.
    5. Noted the resident had sent in receipts to be considered, but it could not open them. It asked her to resend them in order to be considered.
    6. Noted the resident had raised concerns on 26 November 2021, about how long the repairs following the leak were taking, including several visits and missed appointments.
    7. Accepted there were unreasonable delays in dealing with the remedial repairs following a leak from the property above on 13 November 2021. It said it was challenging to deal with, but there were too many visits to resolve the matter. It also accepted it could have considered compensation at stage 1. It said the pandemic affected its services and due to a backlog of complaints, it delayed its complaint response also.
    8. Offered her £900 compensation made up of:
    9. Time, trouble and inconvenience: £400 – the maximum, plus a discretionary £200 to account for further inconvenience up to 8 weeks from that day.
    10. Missed appointments: £100 – this was £10 for each (if there were more than 10 to let it know)
    11. Poor complaint handling: £200.
    12. It did not include the £72 dehumidifier payment already paid or any payment towards receipts she had for items that she wanted to make a claim for.

After the complaints process

  1. On 4 July 2022, having been able to open the receipts sent by the resident, the landlord agreed to reimburse her £131.29 for additional items. This was in addition to the £900 offered on 1 July 2022 and the cost of the dehumidifier.
  2. The resident responded on 9 July 2022 and set out the inconvenience she had suffered since the leak in November 2021 and said she could not agree the compensation offered at that stage. This included having ill health and being inconvenienced having to use a launderette. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 18 July 2022, and it accepted further compensation needed to be considered once the additional work was completed.
  3. The operative reported to the landlord on 6 September 2022 that, having attended the property, additional work was identified at further cost (the subfloor was rotten and it could not colour match units). Although the plan was to initially just replace the necessary units, internal emails that followed show the landlord agreed to change all units so they would match. The landlord also agreed to repaint the property in the colour that the resident wanted.
  4. The resident explained on 7 September 2022 that she had received a stage 2 response on 1 July 2022 and had been told the repairs needed would be completed within 8 weeks. However, they had not all been completed and the person allocated for her to contact had not responded to her last 3 emails.
  5. The landlord advised the resident on 25 October 2022, that someone would contact her in the next few days to arrange to start the necessary works.
  6. The landlord agreed to arrange for the work to be done when the resident was available, as she was concerned about the amount of time she had had to take off already. She agreed for repair work to start week commencing 28 November 2022 having complained about how much time off work she had had to take previously. However after the work started, she reported an operative had damaged her dishwasher. She also reported damage to flooring and a worktop as well as poor workmanship, including missing cabinet doors and gaps in units. The landlord checked with the resident how the work was progressing on 13 December 2022. She replied the same day and said work was still outstanding, the painting had been delayed and there was still rubbish in the communal area. The landlord apologised for this and said it was chasing the operative, arranging for the rubbish removal and would update her.
  7. The resident reported a leak under her kitchen sink on 19 December 2022 that she thought happened when the works started, and she was advised the repairs contractor would contact her the following day to book an appointment. She also raised issues with the newly laid floor and the fitting of kitchen units on 21 December 2022. Internal landlord emails confirm both were scratched by the operatives during the works and the landlord said it would be looked in to and the damaged flooring and worktop replaced when the operative came out to also look at the leak.
  8. The resident explained on 31 December 2022, that she was unhappy the matter was only being looked in to. She had requested a report from a surveyor and she did not want to take any more time of work to stay in for a plumber to rectify a leak under her sink. She was unhappy with the quality of the work in relation to the flooring and units and she wanted reassurance that the kitchen replacement would be completed within an agreed timeframe and professionally; then the painting could be done.
  9. The landlord advised the resident on 13 January 2023 that the flooring company needed to make an appointment to fix the flooring, then the painting could be done. During 2023 the resident continued to liaise with the landlord over the outstanding repairs. In April 2023 some works to the kitchen units were carried out. The resident also reported that she still had a leak under the sink due to the washing machine or dishwasher being connected and reconnected, and plinths and panels needed to be fitted to the units.
  10. The kitchen floor was refitted on 19 May 2023 according to the landlord’s records. An inspection took place in June 2023 to confirm the outstanding work and materials needed for the kitchen refit. There was ongoing correspondence trying to arrange a date for the work to be done and on 28 July 2023 an operative failed to attend an appointment. The resident resent the landlord details of all outstanding repairs.
  11. The landlord records that the leak under the sink was fixed on 1 September 2023, having had a repair in May 2023 that did not remedy the problem. Kitchen works were also carried out that day, but some damage was done by the operative and the resident was unhappy with some of the work. This was remedied by the operative on 20 September 2023.
  12. In terms of the internal decoration, an operative attended on 25 October 2023 but was unable to carry out the painting as it needed assistance and was unaware of the paint that was to be used. After further planning, interior decoration work was carried out on 11 January 2024, but the resident then advised that some redecoration remained outstanding or in poor condition. The landlord has continued to liaise with the resident to complete the work and, on 2 February 2024, it offered £1,335 compensation (in addition to the £900 offered previously), as follows:
    1. £100 for complaint handling.
    2. £1,235 for delays, time, trouble and inconvenience (£65/month from July 2022 to February 2024 (when it expects the remaining work to be completed).

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The lease agreement and relevant statute

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The Tenancy Agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the interior and installations of the property in good repair.
  3. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure says it will initially try and resolve an expression of dissatisfaction without the need for dealing with it as a formal complaint, in the hope of addressing matters quickly. A risk based approach is used to decide whether to escalate a complaint, or a complaint can be escalated to stage 1 by the complainant requesting it. A stage 1 response should be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. It says, “In exceptional circumstances the response can be delayed by up to a further 10 working days. This must be communicated to the resident before the 10 working days providing the good reasons for this.”
  4. If the complainant remains unhappy, and “the case manager should consult with their manager to decide if any alternative resolution can be reached while remaining fair, reasonable and proportionate. If this is not possible then the complaint should be escalated to stage two.” Stage 2 is dealt with by the Customer Experience Team. It will be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 15 working days. If further time is needed the complainant must be told why this is the case and when the review should be completed. An extension cannot exceed a further 10 working days.
  5. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says works considered an emergency should be attended to within 4 hours. “Works that require additional time due to manufacture, complexity or specialist trade. Examples include window replacements, roofing works with scaffolding, damp works, kitchen and bathroom replacements” should be completed within 60 calendar days.
  6. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says for time, trouble and inconvenience caused where there has been extensive disruption, it can pay compensation up to a maximum of £400. A severe failure in complaint handling could amount to compensation of a maximum of £100. It may pay compensation for missed appointments, dependent upon the agreement with the contractor. It says it will also pay £1 per day up to a maximum of £300 if a routine defect is not repaired within 60 days. Where there is an emergency defect, for example an uncontainable leak, it will pay £1 per day with a maximum of £300 per defect if not made safe within 24 hours and making good work within 30 days.

Assessment and findings

Repairs following a leak

  1. The landlord sent an operative out promptly to deal with the leak in November 2021, but because the neighbour did not initially agree to having their flooring removed, it meant pipework could not be accessed and the work was not completed within 4 hours as per its Repairs policy. It therefore took 15 days longer than it should have done for the initial leak to be resolved which meant the landlord did not comply with its obligations. This caused the resident a lot of frustration, to the point she involved her MP. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the neighbour’s actions, it is acknowledged the resident was inconvenienced having operatives attend on several occasions to resolve the leak and make her electrics safe. However, the main issue has been the length of time taken to carry out the remedial works, following the leak.
  2. It is now approximately 2 years and 3 months since the leak was reported and the remedial repairs are still ongoing. This cannot be deemed a reasonable response time. The landlord has accepted there have been too many appointments and the remedial works have taken too long and there are several reasons why this has been the case. There have been issues raised over work being incomplete, the quality of the work done and what work was actually needed. In addition, units did not match, reports were made about rubbish being left in the building and damage was caused to items when operatives attended.
  3. The resident was told on 1 July 2022 that within 8 weeks all outstanding work would be completed, but further issues were then identified. This meant her expectations were not correctly managed and she had to follow up with the landlord again when the deadline was missed.
  4. The landlord did attempt to arrange for work to be done at the convenience of the resident and did check in with her on the progress of repairs. However, having said in July 2022 that it would monitor the repairs, it seems to have relied upon asking the resident for updates on progress. It would have been more appropriate had it liaised with the operatives before and after every appointment. That way it could have ensured it understood what work was planned, completed and remained outstanding, rather than relying upon the resident to have to feedback that there was something wrong.
  5. The resident has had to arrange to be at the property on many occasions in order for remedial work to be carried out. However, it was right for the landlord to try to accommodate the resident’s availability when attending the property, in order to minimise future disruption. It is not known exactly how many missed appointments there were where work could not be completed, but in its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged by way of offering compensation, 10 occasions and the resident did not dispute that. There were also instances of the landlord showing up to the property without the resident knowing it was going to happen, which is unacceptable.
  6. It is acknowledged that the resident could not always be available due to her work commitments, but she did what she could to accommodate the numerous visits needed to complete the remedial work. This, along with people showing up for appointments with no notice and the resident having to arrange to be available for other appointments to complete the remedial work, means she was significantly inconvenienced. Not only in terms of her availability, but because she had to flag several issues either with the quality of the work, or the damage done as a result of visits.
  7. Overall, while the landlord has carried out remedial works, there have been a number of issues resulting in additional work being needed; which has led to the time things have taken. While it seems the majority of this work has now been completed, some remedial work still needs to be finalised.
  8. The resident has provided copies of correspondence she has had with an insurer, in relation to a claim she seems to have made for damage to her car caused by scaffold erected at the property. The Ombudsman notes the insurer accepted the claim in part but did not attribute some of the damage as being caused by scaffold.
  9. The landlord has agreed to reimburse the resident for out of pocket expenses she has been able to prove by way of receipts, which was appropriate if they came about as a result of the work undertaken by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman is not able to comment on the insurer’s decision in relation to the claim, so if the resident wishes to challenge that, she would need to refer her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
  10. As well as paying the resident’s proven out of pocket expenses, the landlord has already offered £700 compensation for the repairs element of the complaint in the stage 2 response of July 2022, 8 months after the leak occurred. It is now 26 months after the leak and, while the majority of the work is complete, there is still further work to do. Therefore, to recognise this, it is right for the landlord to not only complete a schedule of outstanding works and carry them out promptly, but to also increase the amount of compensation offered, which it has now done.
  11. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will pay £1 a day up to a maximum of £300 if an emergency defect, like a leak, is not made safe within 24 hours and making good work is not completed within 30 days. This is something the landlord should have considered when it responded to the complaint, and with remedial works now having taken over 2 years, it should certainly be applied here. However, the landlord has not referred to this when offering compensation.
  12. Instead, the landlord has offered the resident an additional £1,235 to recognise that from July 2022 until February 2024, she suffered further delays as well as time and trouble as a result of the delays completing works at the property. Therefore, rather than capping the additional payment at £300, it was sensible of the landlord to also factor in the additional impact the poor service had on the resident. This means the landlord has, for its deficiency in the way it handled the repairs, now offered the resident a total of £1,935 compensation:
    1. At stage 2, £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £100 for missed appointments (£10 for each)
    2. In February 2024, £1,235 for delays, time, trouble and inconvenience.
  13. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, where there has been maladministration with significant impact on a resident, compensation of up to £1,000 is generally reasonable. That is certainly the case here due to how long the work has taken. The landlord has ultimately offered considerably more than that, completed most of the work, and made several attempts to get work done/put things right. These factors must then be balanced with the overall length of time things have taken.
  14. While the landlord has now increased its offer of compensation, and the sum offered is reasonable, it must be noted that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider a landlord’s handling of matters through its complaints process. The fact that the landlord’s appropriate compensation offer was not made until 18 months after its stage 2 response, and after continued delays following the end of the complaints process, means that there was maladministration in this case.
  15. The landlord did not invoke remedies at the earliest possible stage, and it took far too long to deal with all the repairs needed, which caused the resident a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience. However, this Service is satisfied that the compensation recently offered by the landlord is commensurate with the level of service failure identified, and an order has therefore been made to that effect below.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure says it will initially try and resolve an expression of dissatisfaction without the need for dealing with it as a formal complaint. Therefore, when the resident made her initial complaint via her MP on 22 November 2021, it was reasonable, in principal, for the landlord to initially try to resolve things informally.
  2. The landlord did comply with its obligations and considered the complaint at stage 1, but issued its response 41 working days after the formal complaint was made. Therefore, it did not adhere to the timescales set out in its Complaints Procedure (as detailed above). The landlord’s response came nearly 5 months after the resident first raised concerns over the leak and, despite the leak being fixed, the remedial work was still ongoing. In these circumstances, having to wait longer than she should for a response to the complaint is likely to have only exacerbated the situation for the resident.
  3. In its 1 April 2022 response, the landlord made it clear it was its final response at stage 1. However, when the resident then said she wanted the complaint escalating, the landlord responded by saying it was still trying to resolve matters at stage 1. This was a confusing response and the resident brought this to its attention on 13 April 2022. She was told the stage 1 process had come to an end and she was invited to move the complaint to stage 2. However, as soon as she did that, she was told that stage 1 was still ongoing, and the response implied the landlord had not been given sufficient time to try and resolve matters, which is clearly incorrect. While it did then say it would not prevent her from escalating the complaint to stage 2, it meant she had to then reiterate that was what she wanted; which was entirely unnecessary and amounts to poor service.
  4. Having reconfirmed that she wanted her complaint considered at stage 2 on 13 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged that on 19 April 2022, which means it failed to meet the 3 working days timescale as set out in its Complaints Procedure. The landlord then failed to provide a full response on time. It told the resident on 11 May 2022 that it needed further time to respond, until 25 May 2022 but it did not actually provide the stage 2 response until 1 July 2022. The resident’s expectations were clearly mismanaged and the landlord’s failure to provide a timely response at stage 2 is disappointing, and shows it had not learned from its failure to respond on time at stage 1.
  5. The Ombudsman has noted that, in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged shortfalls in the way things had been dealt with and that could have been addressed at stage 1. For example, noting how long the leak took to fix in November 2021 and that there were a number of missed appointments and visits. In addition, that there were delays with the general remedial works and that compensation should have been considered sooner.
  6. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it overlooked certain points at stage 1, it should not have taken the resident to have to escalate the complaint, for these to be picked up. The landlord did though say it would provide a further response to the complaint once all FOW had been completed and consider whether compensation should be paid, and it has now done this.
  7. When the landlord offered compensation at stage 2, the resident was reluctant to accept the offer because the FOW was still outstanding. Therefore, had an offer of compensation been made sooner, it follows that the resident would have in all likelihood responded in the same way, because until all works were complete, the full impact on her would not have been known. As such, the landlord’s suggestion to consider compensation once all FOW was completed, was not in itself unreasonable.
  8. The landlord applied its Compensation Policy when it considered what an appropriate remedy should be to recognise the failure in its complaint handling. It acknowledged the severity of the omissions by offering £200 compensation, which is twice as much as it says it would usually award for a severe case of this nature. It has since offered an additional £100 compensation.
  9. The Ombudsman is able to take an independent view of the matter, and this Service’s guidance on remedies suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 is reasonable where there has been maladministration, as there has been here.
  10. In this case, while it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer made is not proportionate to the failings identified in its complaint handling. Therefore, compensation in the amount of £400, rather than the £300 offered, would be more appropriate.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs following a leak from the neighbouring property.
    2. The formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were significant delays in completing the remedial repairs following a leak from the neighbouring property.
  2. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2 and failed to offer a reasonable remedy at stage 1, meaning the complaint had to be escalated before an offer was made.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,335. This amount includes the compensation already offered by the landlord and is made up of:
      1. £100 for missed appointments.
      2. £1,835 to recognise the delays, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of making good the remedial work.
      3. £400 for the delays in its complaint handling.
    3. Agree a schedule of outstanding works with the resident.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should have completed all outstanding remedial works of the resident’s property based upon the agreed schedule of works.