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

Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202115047)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115047

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

9 January 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:
    1. external repair works including its level of communication; and
    2. the resident’s queries relating to a section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) consultation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies an end-of-terrace 4-bedroom flat on the first and second floors of a pre-1945 building. The resident’s lease commenced in March 1990 and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 16 March 2021, the resident reported cement falling from above the front bay window and loose brickwork. The resident commissioned a private survey which was carried out on 18 March 2021, and she sent the report to the landlord in April 2021. Also on 18 March 2021, a tradesperson engaged by the landlord attended the property and advised that the arch above the first-floor window needed attention and that scaffolding was required to the front in order to carry out this work above the window.
  3. On 13 April 2021, the resident, and also her local councillor with whom she had discussed the matter, contacted the landlord expressing concern about the state of deterioration of the property. In particular, the resident reported falling cement from above the front bay window, disrepair of window cills, loose chimney pot, and the presence of damp patches on the internal plaster of the landing window. The resident wanted scaffolding to be erected only once and all repairs to be carried out whilst the scaffolding was in situ.
  4. In May 2021, the landlord and resident, and councillor on behalf of the resident, exchanged emails regarding the resident’s survey and surveys that were being arranged by the landlord. The landlord stated that works had been raised in respect of the issue identified on 18 March 2021 and that other work identified in the resident’s own survey report, if confirmed by a survey by its Occupied Repairs and Major Works team, would be carried out. In addition, its Capital Investment team would be carrying out a survey to inspect the external decorations to the block in order to include the property in a future capital cyclical decorating scheme.  Scaffolding was to be erected once it was established what work would be required.
  5. On 13 May 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the property. Scaffolding was erected on 24 May 2021 and a further inspection, along with repairs to the bay window and minor pointing works, was carried out in June 2021. On 10 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the lack of repairs and lack of communication and said that she did not know what the status of outstanding repairs was, nor when the scaffolding would be dismantled.
  6. On 2 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up her complaint, noting that despite the fact that the scaffolding had been up for almost 2 months before being taken down around two weeks earlier, the work that had been carried out had taken only one day. She stated that she had previously been advised that more time was needed to prepare a schedule for the remaining repairs and to issue a section 20 notice in relation to the consultation process for major works. She added that she had previously been advised that once the section 20 consultation had taken place, scaffolding may again be required to complete the repairs; she had been told that the cost of erection and of dismantling scaffolding for a second time would be at the landlord’s cost. The resident continued to chase the landlord for the scope of the works, estimated costs and a date for commencement.
  7. The resident made a second formal complaint to the landlord on 3 September 2021. She said she had waited over 4 months for it to address areas of disrepair and redecorations which were set out in her surveyor’s report. The resident said that since the scaffolding was dismantled in mid-July 2021, she had heard nothing from the landlord. On 29 September 2021, the resident referred her complaint to the Service. She said the landlord had continued to fail to provide adequate information or to take effective action regarding outstanding repairs to her home following submission of her report in March 2021. The Service requested on 19 November 2021 and also on 17 January 2022 that the landlord provide a formal response to the resident.
  8. The landlord issued an interim stage 1 response on 24 January 2022. It acknowledged and apologised that its communications fell below the standard expected. It said it had not effectively responded to her concerns nor updated her on why some works were not carried out and what its plans were to resolve this. It noted that repairs to the chimney, bay window and various pointing works were completed in June 2021 and the scaffolding was subsequently dismantled. It said there were still further repairs, but these had yet to be arranged. It said that it considered the complaint as being at stage 1 of its process. The Service issued the landlord with a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) on 24 February 2022 as it had not provided to the Service a copy of its interim stage 1 response; a deadline of 5 days was given for it to provide its formal response. The landlord did not comply with the CHFO deadline.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 May 2022. It said it had carried out a further inspection of the property on 12 April 2022 and that its repairs service was confident that none of the outstanding repairs represented a health and safety risk nor did they pose any imminent danger to the resident or others.  It acknowledged and apologised that its previous response did not address all the resident’s concerns and that her emails were not responded to. It noted that, in May 2021, scaffolding had been arranged for some works and also to enable a survey of the property to check what work still needed to be carried out, which could include the work outlined in the resident’s survey report. It said its capital investment team had arranged a separate survey of the building to inspect the external decorations in order to see if it was appropriate to set up a future capital cyclical decorations scheme.
  10. It also said that the works undertaken in June 2021 including the scaffolding costs were at no charge to the leaseholders. It offered the resident a total of £600 compensation comprising £200 for the delays in responding to complaints, emails and correspondence; £200 for the delay in carrying out works; and £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by multiple delays and failures.
  11. The resident contacted the Service on 22 May 2022 explaining that she felt the landlord had only partially addressed her formal complaint and that it still had failed to communicate to her when she would likely receive the section 20 notice. On 14 June 2022, the resident asked the Service to escalate her complaint to stage 2; however, the landlord was not informed of this until 5 August 2022. The Service chased the landlord on 4 October 2022 and it provided its stage 2 response on 19 October 2022. It said it had identified the following repairs: repair of concrete window cill at front of property; paint concrete parapets and window cill at front of property; and repoint flank, an area of approximately 10 m2. It said it had enlisted an external contractor to carry out a further inspection which would take place on 26 October 2022 and to provide a quotation, which would enable it to start the section 20 process. It said the section 20 process could take between 3-6 months to complete, after which it would be able to arrange a start date with the contractors. It upheld her complaint, apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 and offered a goodwill gesture of £100.
  12. The resident confirmed to the Service that her complaint was unresolved as the landlord was still using vague and non-committal language as to when she would receive the section 20 notice. The resident explained to the Service in October 2022 and December 2023 that she considered the lack of information provided to her by the landlord, specifically what remedial works to the external decorations the landlord intended to carry out, the estimated costs, and the likely date that the section 20 works would commence, to be major issues for her. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like to know when the section 20 works will likely start, and the anticipated duration. The resident advised the Service on 19 December 2023 that she has now been provided with information about the repairs that are to be carried out and their estimated costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that the landlord’s inability to provide information had a negative impact on her and her husband’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. Accordingly, the investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of external repair works including its level of communication and its handling of the resident’s queries relating to a section 20 consultation. This report will consider the events from the first report of falling cement in March 2021 up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in October 2022, and the actions or lack of actions carried out by the landlord and its contractors. The report will also examine whether the landlord followed its policies and treated the resident fairly.

The landlord’s handling of external repair works including its level of communication

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect on or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. On receiving a report of issues with the exterior of the building, the landlord should have carried out an inspection, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue in line with its prescribed timescales. Given that the issues were concerning for the resident, the landlord was expected to keep the resident updated throughout the period, notifying her of progress and any delays.
  3. As per the lease, the landlord will keep the property in good repair, including repair of external decorations and of the exterior of the flat and the building including the drains, gutters and external pipes and will make good any defect affecting the structure. The leaseholder handbook sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structure and the exterior of the building and shared parts of the building. This includes exterior walls, chimney stacks, window frames and sashes, and external decorations. The landlord’s repair handbook states it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of a building in good repair and for the roof, chimney, walls, and windows.
  4. The landlord’s repair handbook distinguishes between emergency, urgent and non-urgent repairs. Emergency repairs should be dealt with within 2 hours, urgent repairs in 1-5 working days, and a non-urgent repair in up to 20 working days. The Ombudsman understands that where specialist assessment and corresponding works are required, the stipulated timeframes above are not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delay, and keep the resident informed. The repairs handbook also mentions major work, stating that it carries out various major improvements every year and that it will contact residents if they are going to be affected.
  5. The survey commissioned privately by the resident in March 2021 identified a number of repairs required including deteriorated stonework and issues with roofing, flashings, chimney pots, party parapet wall, structural movement to front bay, pointing, decorations, gutters, and soil and vent pipes. On 16 March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord a repair; she took the view that falling cement from above the front bay window presented a risk to health and safety and was therefore an urgent repair. The landlord sent out a tradesperson to inspect the property who reported that the arch needed attention, and scaffolding would be required. While the tradesperson attended in good time, nothing happened as a result of the visit: the resident did not hear back from the landlord, so she chased it on 13 April 2021.
  6. On 13 May 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property and said that, on the basis of the current condition of the property, they recommended that the property be included in the next communal decorating programme. The Capital Investment team were currently collating and reviewing the data held on the landlord’s stock of properties, so once it was in a position to procure and progress the next external decorating programme, all affected residents would be written to, advising them of the block’s inclusion on this programme.
  7. In May 2021, the resident stressed to the landlord that she wanted works carried out in parallel so as not to have scaffolding present for a lengthy period nor to have it erected and dismantled on more than one occasion. This was in order to minimise costs, the security risk, and disruption to her and her neighbours. Unfortunately, the landlord did not arrange for the necessary repairs to all be carried out whilst the scaffolding was in situ for a lengthy period of around 6 weeks from late May 2021 to early July 2021; the resident has reported that only one day’s work was carried out during these 6 weeks. Although it appears to be the case that the landlord wished to carry out only immediate necessary repairs in the first instance, and to incorporate the block into its next external decorating programme, it has caused inconvenience and distress to the resident in that she will have been obliged to have scaffolding around her property on more than one occasion within a relatively short period of time.
  8. There is also evidence that the resident made concerted efforts to find out the exact times and dates when the scaffolding was to be erected so that the scaffolders would not attend without having first notified the resident and the relevant neighbours. She did this because the necessary access for the scaffolders was via a side gate which is also used by residents of a neighbouring property: the resident understandably did not wish to leave this side gate unlocked for any longer than necessary, given the security risks associated with an unlocked gate and scaffolding in situ. 
  9. The scaffolding was erected on 24 May 2021; the landlord carried out an inspection and did work on the bay window as well as minor pointing works in June 2021. This was over 3 months after the resident had reported the need for repair, which exceeded its policy timescales.
  10. The landlord has said that repairs to the brickwork, chimney, bay window and various areas of pointing were completed in June 2021. It is important to differentiate between repair works that the landlord completed in June 2021 and remaining repairs including external decorating as set out in the resident’s survey report, which the landlord said would be addressed by way of a section 20 consultation.
  11. In July 2021, despite the scaffolding having been dismantled, the resident was not informed of when the outstanding works would be carried out, let alone what they specifically were. The resident has advised that, to date, not all the required repairs included in her surveyor’s report have been carried out. This is a significant amount of time to have been waiting for repairs which the landlord was obliged to undertake and would have caused distress and frustration. As the resident had been planning for her retirement, the lack of communication around repairs and the lack of action would have caused anxiety and uncertainty. The resident was reasonably entitled to expect that information about all necessary repairs would be communicated in a timely manner to her and carried out promptly by way of a section 20 consultation.
  12. There is evidence that more than one of the landlord’s departments were involved in establishing the repairs required to this property, namely the Occupied Repairs and Major Works team and the Capital Investment team. It is unclear why so many surveys (there appear to have been 4) were conducted and, indeed, why a single thorough survey could not have been conducted by a suitably qualified individual. This may suggest inadequate planning and record keeping, and poor communication between departments.
  13. The resident also raised concerns about the lack of adequate communication by the landlord and about how difficult it was to contact the landlord after the scaffolding was erected: she detailed how numerous emails and particularly phone calls went unanswered or were redirected only to lines with static or silence. This was contrary to the landlord’s quality service standards as noted in the leaseholder handbook which states it is committed to providing a high standard of service to its customers including sending a full response in writing in 10 working days and answering the telephone within five rings. This did not happen and amounts to service failure by the landlord. While the landlord did apologise for the inadequate communication, this was insufficient given the adverse effect on the resident who spent large amounts of her own time chasing the landlord about outstanding matters. Ultimately, the landlord failed to co-ordinate its various departments and its staff effectively and in a timely manner, which resulted in inordinate delays in carrying out the works, of which a number remain outstanding.
  14. The resident said the lack of paint around the exterior made the property look uncared for which she found embarrassing. The landlord has an obligation to ensure that the structure of the property is in good order in accordance with the lease. While the lack of paint may not have affected the resident’s ability to occupy her property, it would have still had an adverse effect on the resident.
  15. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s surveyor who visited the property on 12 April 2022 stated that the resident’s report related only to the external appearance of the house. The landlord’s surveyor’s view was that the property was structurally sound and they considered that the property had been regularly maintained, with evidence of paint and brick pointing works having been completed recently. Although some works were needed including concrete repair, paint to window cill at front of property, paint concrete parapet and repoint flank wall, these could be added to the next stage of planned maintenance works. They said that they could not find anything to suggest the council had neglected its landlord duties nor was there evidence that the structure was compromising the safety of the tenants.
  16. The Ombudsman recognises that this conflicts with the resident’s survey report. The resident’s survey had indicated that the building ought to have been redecorated in around 2016 and noted that external redecoration and maintenance should be undertaken every 4 to 5 years as part of cyclical maintenance. The resident herself said that the works identified by the landlord’s surveyor on 12 April 2022, referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 response, had not included the damp patches on the internal plaster below the first-floor landing window nor a crack across the bathroom window at the back of the property. She noted that she had reported these repairs to the landlord in April 2021.
  17. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its surveyor; however, there is no evidence that it relayed this information to the resident until 4 May 2022 in its stage 1 response. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide this information to the resident sooner. The Ombudsman notes that it is now over 33 months since the resident first reported her concerns and provided a copy of her commissioned survey to the landlord, it is the case that the landlord failed to carry out works including external decorations within an appropriate timeframe.
  18. While some repairs were carried out, they were done so with inordinate delays and with much chasing by the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s communication was not up to standard and while it apologised in its formal responses for this and offered some compensation, this remedy failed to take into account the overall inconvenience and distress the situation caused.
  19. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of between £100 to £600 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the outstanding repairs appear to include painting cills; bathroom window crack; damp patches on the internal plaster; concrete repair to window cill at front of property; and repointing flank wall. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries relating to a section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) consultation

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the resident must pay towards the cost of any services or work to the building her home is in and this is done by paying a service charge. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (amended by section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022), the landlord must consult the resident about some of the work and services that she must pay for where the individual contribution is likely to be above £250.
  2. The landlord does not have a policy in relation to section 20; however, it should endeavour to provide responses to requests for information in a timely manner. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was entitled to conduct further surveys to ascertain what works were needed, it is noted that these were carried out in May 2021, June 2021, April 2022 and October 2022. Given the number of surveys undertaken and the time elapsed, it is concerning that it was still unable to give the resident some clarity on the works that triggered the need for a section 20 consultation and why the consultation itself still could not take place.
  3. The resident informed the Service in December 2023 that although she had been provided in 2023 with estimated costs and a schedule of the works to be carried out, this was not part of the consultation process and she has been given no indication of when the work which required consultation would be carried out nor how long the works would go on for. 
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the first mention of section 20 was during a telephone call that the resident had with the landlord on 10 June 2021. On 2 August 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it was going to obtain quotations from subcontractors for external remedial repairs and that a section 20 consultation would be necessary. As the resident is a leaseholder and would be required to pay towards costs of any works to the building, it was understandable why she was concerned about the potential costs and timings of any major works. She advised that she had plans which she had been forced to put on hold.
  5. The landlord suggested the prospect of a section 20 consultation to the resident as early as June 2021. Despite numerous efforts from the resident between 2021 and 2022 to establish when the section 20 would be issued and what works would be included and their duration, she has advised that (until recently when she was provided with part of the information) she has not been provided with this information. It should have been apparent to the landlord in August 2021 that the resident simply wanted an idea of when she might expect to receive the section 20 notice. She explained that not knowing what the remedial works were to be, when they would be done and how much they would cost was causing her considerable stress and upset. She felt that three months was a reasonable time to provide this.
  6. The landlord acted unfairly by failing to provide this information in a reasonable time. The landlord had many opportunities to supply this information but it did not do enough or share enough information to effectively manage the resident’s concerns. This is unacceptable considering the resident’s request for information was first made over 2 years prior and would have caused distress and frustration to the resident
  7. In June 2021, an internal landlord record indicates that this was a “one-off section 20 so a schedule 4(2) plus time needed for tendering exercise between the notice of intention and notice of estimates”. It is unclear why, at this point or even after its further survey in April 2022, the landlord did not provide information to the resident about the potential timings of the elements of the section 20 process. The resident said that had the landlord provided her with an approximate date, she would have been much happier. It was a failing on the part of the landlord who demonstrated poor expectation management.
  8. As the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for information by stating it was still awaiting survey results, upon completing these, it should have fully responded to the resident’s requests. This did not happen. It did not provide the resident with the information in relation to the section 20 process as it became in possession of this information and it was not forthcoming with this information despite the resident’s many requests. This would have been unsettling for the resident.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of May 2022, it stated that, after an inspection by an external contractor on 26 October 2022, it would be provided with a quotation that would enable it to start the section 20 process. It noted that the section 20 process could take between 3-6 months to complete and that, once this had been completed, it could arrange a start date with the contractors. The resident felt this was vague, non-committal and unacceptable as this was the same message as given to her 17 months previously when the matter was discussed during a telephone call in June 2021.
  10. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 28 October 2022 stating that it could not give the resident a date for repairs but that it would inform her soon. It is unclear why this was the case as an external contractor was due to have attended the property two days beforehand to provide quotations for the works. The resident has advised that, to date, she has not received a planned date for repairs. This failure by the landlord to keep its promise was a failing on its part.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries relating to a section 20 consultation was poor. It failed to deal with her queries in a timely manner and made little effort to manage the resident’s expectations. The Ombudsman considers that the £200 compensation awarded by the landlord in its stage 1 response for the inconvenience and distress caused by multiple delays and failures does not adequately reflect the level of detriment identified.
  12. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of between £100 to £600 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which impacted the resident. It is noted that the resident informed the Service in December 2023 that she now has information relating to the cost estimates and what the remedial works are. However, she said that she still does not know when the works will be carried out and how long it would take. In view of this, a number of orders have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has two-stage procedure. It should respond at the stage 1 within 15 working days. At stage 2 of this procedure, the landlord should provide its response to the resident within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request. Its policy states that, if it is unable to meet either of its timeframes for response, it should contact the resident to explain why and provide an updated timeframe.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 June 2021 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 May 2022. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s 15 working day target. While it is accepted that there may be occasions when a landlord needs longer to respond to a complaint, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord kept the resident updated in this regard.
  3. The landlord issued an interim stage 1 response on 24 January 2022. It is likely that the landlord considered this to be a holding letter as it stated at the end of this response that “The Council now consider your complaint ongoing Stage 1 of its complaints procedure”. Given the length of time since her formal complaint in June 2021, this response would have caused distress to the resident as it was likely she may have felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
  4. Following contact from the resident, the Service asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 August 2022. The Service chased the landlord for its response on 4 October 2022 which led to it requesting an extension to provide its final response by 17 October 2022. However, it was only upon being chased by this Service that the landlord expressed its need for an extension – no attempt was made to manage the resident’s expectations prior to this. Moreover, despite requesting an extension, the landlord did not issue its response until 19 October 2022. This was over 50 working days after the escalation request and two days later than it subsequently said it would.
  5. Its stage 2 response did offer an apology for the delay. However, the landlord failed to provide an explanation. In addition, the Ombudsman considers that the tone of the landlord’s response was dismissive and failed to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident had experienced. Further, it is noted that it did not address all of the resident’s concerns.
  6. The Ombudsman’s assessment has found lengthy delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling as well as failures in applying its own policies and procedures and in responding to the resident’s concerns on numerous occasions. Throughout the complaint, separate interventions from a councillor and the Ombudsman failed to prompt the landlord to address the complaint in line with its complaints policy.
  7. The resident said she spent a great deal of time chasing the landlord which is supported by the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude that this level of engagement was extremely inconvenient for the resident. By failing to address the complaint promptly, the landlord missed its opportunity to rectify issues relating to its handling of the repair and the resident’s enquiries.
  8. It is noted that the landlord attempted to put things right by offering a total of £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, the Ombudsman considers that this offer of compensation was not proportionate in putting matters right for the resident. It took the landlord over a year to respond to her concerns through its complaints process. In addition, its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to keep her updated on the delays. The landlord missed numerous opportunities to put things right and it failed to act in accordance with its own complaints policy. This amounts to a finding of maladministration and an order has been made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. external repair works including its level of communication.
    2. the resident’s queries relating to a section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) consultation.
    3. the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident and the Service with information about the works that remain outstanding, when the works will start and likely be completed and what this cost will be. It must also include the computation clearly showing the proportion of the total cost of work for which she is liable.
    2. Pay the resident £1,350 made up of:
      1. £700 as offered across its formal responses, if it has not done so already.  
      2. A further £300 for the delay in carrying out outstanding remedial repairs.
      3. A further £200 compensation for the delays in providing information about the section 20 to the resident.
      4. A further £150 compensation for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, complaints and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to ensure that landlord’s departments communicate effectively with one another and that repairs such as this resident’s are promptly completed and fully remedied in every case.