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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202000055)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000055

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 December 2020


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 the resident’s:
    1. reports of water ingress into his property and the consequential repairs which were required;
    2. associated complaint and claim for compensation.

 

Background and summary of events

 

  1. The resident is the tenant of a flat in a block. His landlord is a leaseholder of the freeholder who owns the building the flat is situated in. The freeholder uses a managing agent to perform its responsibilities in respect of the building.

 

  1. On 18 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report that water was coming through the ceiling in one of the bedrooms in his property. The landlord emailed the managing agent on 14 November 2019 asking it to deal with the situation urgently as the room was now damp and the resident was reporting that he could not use it.

 

  1. The resident submitted a complaint on 27 November 2019, stating that, whilst the landlord had sent an engineer out relatively quickly, they then told him that the freeholder was responsible. He had then contacted the freeholder which had told him someone would attend within 24 hours but he had then been unsuccessfully chasing the situation with the freeholder for a month. He said the freeholder had wanted to discuss the question of who was responsible and about a warranty for the building (NHBC) but the resident just wanted someone to take responsibility and sort the situation out.

 

  1. The resident reported that he had not been able to use the room since and he was concerned about the safety of the ceiling. He had no current information as to when the repair was going to be carried out, if at all. His view was that, as he paid rent to the landlord, it was responsible for sorting everything out. In terms of a remedy, he wanted the landlord to: replace a damaged laptop, dresser and bedroom carpet; offer a 33.3% rent reduction from 18 October 2019 (wen the leak happened) until the matter had been resolved; and decant his family to another property.

 

  1. On 28 November 2019, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and contacted the resident. It was agreed that an inspection would take place and that compensation could not be considered until the matter had been fully investigated. The same day, the landlord noted that there were a number of issues with leaks in the building which the management agent was not responding to properly and its legal team were being enlisted to help resolve the situation.

 

  1. In the landlord’s email of 4 December 2019, it proposed a meeting between the resident, its building inspector and the managing agent on 12 December 2019. The meeting went ahead, and it was noted that there was a bucket in place on the bedroom floor to catch water. The managing agent confirmed that it would arrange for a contractor to inspect the roof and complete any redecoration work. On 18 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to update him that the roofing contractor’s report was still awaited but was being chased.

 

  1. The following day, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim on his contents insurance for his damaged belongings but he advised that he did not have any and wanted to claim from the landlord. He questioned whether there had been any previous roof leaks. The same day, the landlord emailed the managing agent chasing the situation. It noted that further rainfall was anticipated, and that the resident had now reported black mould forming on the ceiling. With the Christmas holidays approaching it asked what could be done to help the resident and enquired about a possible claim on an NHBC warranty.

 

  1. The managing agent responded the same day, stating that it was arranging for another roofing contractor to visit the building and that it was hoping to at least carry out a temporary holding repair if it could not be fixed straight away. In the meantime, it was pursuing the NHBC route.

 

  1. On 20 December 2019 the landlord set about arranging for a dehumidifier to be made available to the resident.

 

  1. The landlord chased the managing agent for an update on 7 January 2020 and updated the resident the following day. The dehumidifier had not been delivered due to staff absence but this had been rearranged for that day. The landlord also chased the managing agent again.

 

  1. On 13 January 2020 the managing agent confirmed that its contractors had identified the possible cause of the leak as a faulty seal around pipework on the roof. This had now been sealed and it would wait until everything had dried out and then arrange redecorations. The landlord then reported to the managing agent, on 17 January 2020, that there had been no further problems and the area had dried out. It asked that the redecoration works be carried out. It was then arranged for the managing agents’ contractor to visit the property on 24 January 2020 to see what was required. On 3 February 2020 the landlord emailed the managing agent asking for an update.

 

  1. In the resident’s email of 7 February 2020, he again asked the landlord for compensation for not being able to use the room for so long. He was complimentary of the landlord’s efforts to resolve the situation and considered that the managing agent was “making this matter worse”. In his email of 10 February 2020, he asked who was handling his complaint and whether it needed escalating to a different department within the landlord’s structure.

 

  1. In the landlord’s response of 14 February 2020, it stated that the leak related to the roof which was “managed and maintained” by the managing agent. It denied, therefore, that there had been any service failing or negligence on its own part and stated that the situation “sits outside of our complaints procedure and therefore has not been registered as a complaint”. It advised that such claims are normally dealt with on a resident’s home insurance but, given that the resident had none, once work was complete it would discuss a possible goodwill payment with the managing agent. The resident responded the same day highlighting that a complaint had been opened and he had received confirmation of this. He reported mould which was making him “sneeze” and reiterated that he did not consider he should pay full rent when he could not use the room.

 

  1. The landlord replied that, whilst a complaint had been opened, it was then noted that there was no service failure on the landlord’s part, and it had focused its efforts on working with the managing agent to resolve the situation. In response the resident pointed out that this had not been communicated to him.

 

  1. On 17 February 2020 the managing agents confirmed that the repair was complete and there had been no other reports from other tenants. The landlord emailed the resident that day to arrange to visit the property for its contractor to treat the mould on the ceiling. The resident replied the next day confirming that he had cleaned the mould away and was regularly airing the room. He said that the managing agent’s decorators had attended three weeks previously to see what was required but nothing had happened since. He questioned whether the landlord had agreed to do the redecoration at its last visit to the property anyway.

 

  1. The landlord updated the resident on 3 March 2020, when it said that it was still waiting on the managing agent. On 13 March 2020 the landlord updated him again, explaining that it had escalated the issue of the outstanding decorating with the managing agent and it would use its own contractor to do the work if there was no progress shortly. The managing agent responded that it could not do the work before early April 2020 and the resident agreed to make himself available on 6 April 2020.

 

  1. On 13 March 2020 the resident repeated his request for compensation to the landlord as follows: £400 for his damaged laptop; £150 for the damaged dresser; £30 to clean the carpet; a rent reduction of 40% from 18 October 2019 to date (calculated at £2,592); an ongoing rent reduction until the problem was fixed; and electricity costs for the dehumidifier of 34 days at £3/day totalling £102. He wanted the landlord to agree a total payment of £3,274 plus the ongoing rent reduction.

 

  1. On 24 March 2020 the landlord informed the resident that, due to the pandemic and the restrictions it was causing, the managing agent’s contractor could not currently do the agreed work. The following day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation and said that it was being referred to the freeholder’s senior management. It said it would do the redecoration itself if the managing agent had not agreed a date to start it by the following Monday, 30 March 2020.

 

  1. The resident then logged a complaint with the landlord on 2 April 2020, regarding the outstanding works. This was acknowledged and a stage one complaint opened. However, a different member of staff had, earlier that day, responded to the resident’s compensation claim. It stated that the repairs were the responsibility of the managing agent and were not brought about by any negligence on the landlord’s part. It noted that the managing agent was making an insurance claim in respect of the costs of the repairs and the resident’s claims should be included in that.

 

  1. With regard to the requested rent reduction, the landlord pointed out that, once the repair had been made in January 2020 and the room had dried out, the decision not to use it had been out of choice rather than necessity. The fact it had not been redecorated did not stop it being used. With regard to the use of the room prior to the repair, it was for the resident to show that it was uninhabitable at this time. The landlord noted that its own “compensation framework” did not allow it to offer compensation/rent rebate for restricted habitation where it was the fault of a third party (the freeholder/managing agent). The landlord confirmed that it had submitted details of this claim to the managing agent on the resident’s behalf and asked for it to be included in its insurance claim.

 

  1. The landlord refused the resident’s claim for a damaged laptop and dresser stating that it was the resident’s responsibility to insure such items. It offered to put forward to the managing agent the cost of cleaning the carpet if the resident provided a receipt for this and it requested evidence of the cost of running the dehumidifier. Finally, it noted that no compensation was due for delays caused by the pandemic and it was unable to make a goodwill gesture payment as it was not at fault.

 

  1. Given the customer service team had agreed to open a complaint on the resident’s behalf, and given he had received a detailed response, he replied to the customer service team, asking for his complaint to be escalated to stage two. It responded that, due to limitations placed on its operation by the pandemic, it could not facilitate a review panel at present.
  2. On 6 April 2020 the resident asked if the landlord had offered its final position. It confirmed that it did not consider the damage was as a result of any failure on its part, and that it would not compensate him for it or deal with the matter through its Complaints Policy. It suggested that the resident pursue an insurance claim against the managing agent’s insurers.

 

  1. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman then contacted the landlord on 14 June 2020, asking it to clarify the status of the complaint. On 16 June 2020 the landlord contacted the resident stating that if he wanted to proceed with his complaint, he needed to set out why he remained dissatisfied. The resident responded the same day and gave his reasons as follows:

 

24.1         He had not been compensated for the loss of a room, damage to his laptop or damage to his dresser;

 

24.2         He had not been compensated for the costs of running the dehumidifier;

 

24.3         The work was still outstanding;

 

24.4         There was a lack of communication between different departments in the landlord’s organisation

 

  1. On 17 June 2020 the landlord’s internal records show that the outstanding work was due to be carried out the next day and its understanding was that the managing agent’s insurers had agreed to meet all claims for damage from the leak.

 

  1. The Ombudsman chased the landlord for its stage two response on 29 June 2020 and the resident chased it the following day. He reiterated that he had made his complaint in November 2019, some 8 months previously and, given the amount of time it had taken so far, he wanted his stage two review to be treated with urgency. The landlord then arranged a review panel and the resident made his submissions for the review on 30 July 2020 (as detailed in his previous correspondence).

 

  1. In the landlord’s letter of 27 August 2020, it confirmed the outcome of the review panel. It set out that it was a leaseholder of the property, the resident was a sub-lessee, and the freeholder’s responsibilities under the lease were discharged by a managing agent who was not its contractor. It considered that its repairing covenants under its lease related to the internal aspects of the building, and the freeholder was responsible for any common areas including the roof. It noted that, whilst the resident’s contractual relationship was with the landlord, the situation was complicated by the fact that under the terms of its lease it was not entitled or permitted to access the roof or undertake works to it.

 

  1. It confirmed that the repairs history for the property did not show any previous reports of roof leaks and advised that other leaks in the building related to an issue with the balconies. It accepted that the affected room would not have been useable from when the leak first happened on 18 October 2019 to when it was repaired on 17 January 2020. However, following on from that, the room had dried out and was awaiting redecoration, so it was useable thereafter.

 

  1. The landlord found that it had pushed the managing agent constantly to get the works done and the situation had been challenging because of restrictions due to the pandemic. It concluded that internal decorations were outside of its obligations, the resident having suggested that it was its responsibility and it should have done this work when the managing agent did not organise it.

 

  1. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow its complaints policy by not treating the issue as a formal complaint earlier; not investigating and issuing a stage one response; and delaying in escalating the matter to stage two. It therefore apologised and offered £100 compensation. With regard to compensation for damaged items it felt that its policy made it clear that such items should be covered by the resident’s household insurance as it was not the landlord’s policy to pay for such damage where it was not at fault.

 

  1. The landlord concluded that it had acted appropriately in complying with its own policies and procedures, save in respect of its complaint handling, and its decisions on compensation were reasonable. It would help the resident in making his claim against the managing agent’s insurance but it could not make the claim itself as it was the resident who had suffered the loss rather than the landlord.

 

  1. The review continued that if the resident was unsuccessful in claiming against the managing agent’s insurance, the landlord would compensate him for the loss of use of his room from 18 October 2019 to 17 January 2020 as a gesture of goodwill, but this would be calculated using its own method. It would also reimburse the cost of using the dehumidifier of £102, giving a total compensation offer of £202 (including the service failure in complaints handling). The landlord confirmed that this concluded its complaints procedure.

 

  1. In the resident’s email of 3 October 2020, he reported that, despite repairs having been carried out, he had experienced the same water ingress after heavy rainfall and the room was becoming “uninhabitable” (photographs provided). The following day, he contacted the Ombudsman, reporting that the landlord was aware of the problem before he moved in and saying that the repairs history for twelve months before his tenancy should be requested. He was looking for the following remedy to his complaint: damaged laptop (£400); damaged dresser (£150); cost of Antihistamines (£9); carpet cleaning costs x 2 (£60); loss of enjoyment for himself and his family; a full rent refund for 8 months plus damages; and a rent refund for the time it would take to conduct the repairs (anticipated as 3 to 6 months).

 

  1. In the landlord’s response of 6 October 2020, it expressed its regret that the resident was experiencing water ingress in the bedroom again. As this was the second time, it would log the issue as a formal complaint and an acknowledgement would be sent shortly. It had already reported the issue to the managing agent and was chasing it for a response. In the meantime, a landlord surveyor would visit the property to inspect any damage. Shortly after, the landlord emailed the resident again advising that the managing agent had arranged for its contractor to attend the next day to inspect the canopy above the resident’s balcony to see if this was the cause of the problem.

 

  1. On 7 October 2020 the landlord confirmed that its surveyor would attend on 9 October 2020 to inspect inside the property, although this was then changed to 12 October 2020. On 16 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if the managing agent’s contractor could visit the property on 20 October 2020, this time to inspect the interior of the property. In the resident’s email of 19 October 2020, he requested a copy of the managing agent’s contractor’s report following the repairs carried out earlier in the year. The landlord responded that it was chasing this up with the managing agent.

 

  1. In the resident’s email of 22 October 2020, he questioned why the landlord had not received a report into the earlier repairs to the roof before. As the same issue had arisen again so quickly he felt that the landlord should pay compensation from October 2019 until the issue was properly resolved. He was suspicious that either no repair had actually been done earlier in the year, or it had but was of poor quality. He requested a temporary decant whilst the issue was resolved. He reported that mould was building up in the room again and it could not be used and that he could not use the dehumidifier supplied by the landlord because of the electricity costs. He noted that the issue was affecting his family’s health.

 

  1. On 28 October 2020 the managing agent’s contractor emailed the resident and arranged to attend his property on 4 November 2020 to quote for repair works to the bedroom ceiling and wall. The resident replied asking for a copy of “the report for the repairs your contractors carried out earlier in the year” and for confirmation that work had actually been carried out. The managing agent replied that its inspection had shown works had been carried out earlier in the year, but it did not believe this was done by its contractor.

 

  1. In the resident’s email to the Ombudsman of 9 November 2020, he reported that the repeat of the leak notified to the landlord on 3 October 2020 had not yet been repaired.

 

  1. On 23 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, when he reported his understanding of a letter he had received from the landlord dated 13 November 2020 in which it had offered to pay compensation of £12.21 per day from when the second leak was reported until it was repaired. He rejected this on the basis that it should be paid until “full internal redecorations have taken place”. He questioned why this offer had not been made in respect of his first complaint (which is the subject of this investigation). He invited the landlord to visit the property and inspect the room which he reported had mould growing in it. He repeated his suspicion that the roof had not been repaired initially and it was down to “luck” that the leak had stopped at that point.

 

  1. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 30 November 2020, when he reported that his complaint about the second leak was progressing to stage two. He was aware that the circumstances of that leak would not be considered as part of this investigation but he understood that the fact it had happened again so soon might be taken into account when considering orders/recommendations.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including: the roof; outside walls, outside doors, windows, including external painting and decorating where necessary; and internal walls, floors and ceilings (but not including painting and decorating). It also states that the landlord will make good and tidy up after any repairs and improvement works.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that:

 

42.1         “We will make a payment when there is evidence that there has been a service failure that we’re responsible for, that has caused loss, damage or inconvenience, and has been recorded onto our case management system as either a service dissatisfaction or as a complaint.”

 

42.2         service failures are defined as including: not following policies and procedures; failure and delays in undertaking repairs; quality of repairs;

 

42.3         the landlord will consider making an award when “a customer loses the use of an amenity, such as a bedroom”;

 

42.4         “Requests for compensation are not covered by this policy where they concern: issues caused by a third party for whose conduct we have no direct legal liability; claims covered by home contents insurance (and we are not at fault);

 

42.5         the landlord’s staff should use its Compensation Framework when calculating the amount of compensation.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Procedure and Guidance sets out its compensation framework and gives guidance to staff on how to calculate an award.  It has the following provisions:

 

43.1         “Loss of Use of a room. If a room cannot be used for its primary function as a result of a defect that we have been notified of then we can consider making a payment of compensation. This would be done by way of a rent reduction calculation which is detailed below”;

 

43.2         Net weekly rent ÷ number of rooms (not including kitchen, bathroom, WC) x number of rooms affected x number of weeks or days the room remains unusable;

 

43.3         “It is accepted that on occasions decorative remedial works may be required. However, except in exceptional circumstances where the scope of the remedial works is extensive, we would not consider that this renders a room unusable and we should therefore use the date the works to repair the defect are completed as the end date”;

 

43.4         “We will consider compensating a customer when it is evident that a customer has incurred additional costs as a result of a service failure. Examples of this may include the cost of using a dehumidifier….”;

 

43.5         “when it is evident we have failed to deliver a service…. Or we have not adhered to a policy or procedure we can consider making a payment in recognition of this. This payment can be up to £25 (for multiple failures this rises to £50)”;

 

43.6         “If a case handler believes that in addition to the amount calculated using the framework an additional payment is required then they can consider making a discretionary payment. There is no limit on the amount that can be paid….”;

 

43.7         “..the case handler should seek to establish if the request has arisen due to a failure on our part and it relates to something that we are responsible for. An example of this would be damage caused as a result of a leak…..it would be appropriate to consider compensating the customer for the damage. This is the case even if the resident has their own home insurance..”

 

Assessment

 

  1. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the landlord is responsible for repairs/maintenance of the roof and the exterior of the building. It also makes the landlord responsible to “make good” after repairs. It is not for the Ombudsman to interpret the terms of a tenancy agreement or lease or to make legally binding decisions on the respective parties’ rights and responsibilities under those occupancy agreements. That would require a legally binding decision by a court. However, this Service does have regard to the terms of these agreements when assessing what is reasonable in the circumstances of a case.

 

  1. Given the terms of the tenancy agreement as detailed above, the landlord should at least have considered its obligations to the tenant, clearly explained why it did not consider that it was responsible for the repairs and sought legal advice if necessary. Based on the evidence, it was understandable that the resident expected the landlord to do more to resolve both the substantive repair issue and the subsequent redecoration. The fact that the terms of the landlord’s lease with the freeholder did not reflect those of its agreement with the resident, or that landlord could not perform its obligations under the tenancy agreement without enforcing the terms of its lease with the freeholder, did not alter its obligations to the tenant and did not prevent the tenant from enforcing those obligations.

 

  1. In this situation, therefore, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to handle the situation differently. Upon receipt of the resident’s report, it should have taken ownership of the repair, liaising with the managing agent, and keeping the resident informed of developments, such as inspections, appointments and so on. It should have arranged the redecoration works. If the managing agent and/or freeholder failed, in any way, to perform their obligations, it was then for the landlord to enforce the terms of its agreement with them. This was not the resident’s responsibility. Further, the landlord could have done more to explain the difficulties and limitations posed by its contractual relationship with the freeholder in order to manage the resident’s expectations and keep him informed of the reasons for the delays.

 

  1. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint, it was for the landlord to handle this in accordance with its complaints procedure and to apply its own compensation policy and procedure. This is because the non-performance of the tenancy conditions represents a failing in service by the landlord, even if it had arisen because it was constrained from giving an effective performance by a third party. If the landlord considered that it was having to pay compensation to a resident due to default by the freeholder/managing agent, it was for the landlord to consider recovering that outlay from that third party, rather than using it as a justification to not offer it to the resident in the first instance.

 

  1. In this case, the resident reported the leak and was told to liaise with the managing agents himself. It was only when he complained about the lack of progress that the landlord became involved.

 

  1. Having reported the issue on 18 October 2019 it took until 17 January 2020 for the repair to be dealt with and the room dried out with the aid of a dehumidifier. This represented an unreasonable delay. The resident reported being unable to use the room during this time and the landlord has now accepted that. The resident has asserted that the room remained uninhabitable until it was redecorated in June 2020. However, such work, whilst necessary, was cosmetic and it is not accepted that it would render the room unusable. Indeed, the landlord’s Compensation Procedure confirms that its policy is that decorative works do not affect the ability of the room to be used. 

 

  1. There was a delay in the redecoration being completed, which was caused, in part, by the restrictions in place due to the pandemic and was not entirely the landlord’s fault. However, there was still a delay between mid–January 2020 and late–March 2020 during which the works might have been resolved.

 

  1. The landlord accepted the resident’s formal complaint as such, but then declined to deal with it on the basis that the problem was caused by a third party and was not covered by its complaints policy after all. It took the approach that claims for compensation should be directed by the resident to the managing agent and saw its role as a ‘go between’ providing details of the claim. This was all inappropriate, given the contents of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s application of its complaints and compensation policies was guided by its misreading of its obligations under the tenancy agreement. Once it had incorrectly identified that a third party was wholly responsible it continued along the wrong path. As a result, the resident has been put to significant inconvenience in pursuing the repair, his complaint and his request for compensation.

 

  1. A further leak has now appeared. It is not possible for this Service to determine whether its cause is the same as the original leak. The resident understandably reports his frustration at the problem apparently recurring after such a short period of time. It leaves him questioning whether the repair was done properly the first time around (or even at all). That second leak, and its consequences, are the subject of a separate complaint which is still progressing through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

 

  1. In the meantime, the resident has claimed compensation from the landlord under a number of headings, as follows:

 

53.1         Rent reduction – He has claimed a rent reduction/holiday for lack of use of the room. It is agreed that the room was out of use for 91 days from 18 October 2019 to 17 January 2020. The landlord stated, in its stage two response, that it would offer compensation based on its calculation method, rather than the resident’s claimed 40% (or full rent holiday). It did not set out what that would amount to for the resident’s consideration as there was a proviso that the resident try to claim it from the managing agent first. The calculation to be used is set out in the landlord’s compensation procedure. The daily rate for this calculation has been placed by the landlord at £12.21 per day for the second complaint and it is reasonable to use that figure for this complaint. This equates to a compensation payment of 91 x £12.21 = £1,111.11.

 

53.2         Damage to belongings – The landlord referred these matters to insurers – either the resident’s own or the managing agents. In fact, the compensation procedure provides for the landlord to offer compensation even if the resident has their own insurance. There is no evidence that this was considered, largely due to the landlord’s stance on the substantive issues;

 

53.3         Dehumidifier costs – The landlord agreed to reimburse the cost of running the dehumidifier in the sum of £102, which was appropriate.

 

53.4         Complaint handling failures – The landlord offered £100 for its poor complaints handling, accepting in its stage two response that it had not accepted the complaint or investigated it quickly enough, and that there were delays in escalating it to the next stage of its procedure. This sum was appropriate according to its compensation procedure;

 

53.5         Antihistamines and carpet cleaning – No evidence of these costs has been provided to this Service and so it would not be appropriate to require the landlord to cover these costs. However, a recommendation has been made in this regard, for the landlord to consider whether these costs should be payable.

 

  1. Finally, there is an area of disagreement over whether the room should be treated as unusable until the decoration was completed because the resident has stated there was an ongoing mould problem caused by the leak and which prevented its use. There is insufficient evidence to confirm the extent or timing of that problem to enable a finding that the room remained unusable after 17 January 2020 or to support the loss of use claim continuing after that date.

 

  1. In addition to the items of damage and loss detailed above, the resident has been put to a significant amount of inconvenience pursuing the repair and its aftermath over and above the delays he experienced to the complaint handling process. Had the landlord dealt with matters as it should have done, much of this could have been avoided. The landlord’s compensation procedure allows for a further discretionary payment to be made and that would be appropriate in this case.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:

 

56.1         reports of a leak to his roof;

 

56.2         associated complaint and claim for compensation.

 

Orders

 

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

 

57.1         pay the resident £1,500 compensation (£1,111.11 for the loss of use of his room; £102 for his costs in running a dehumidifier; £100 for its delays in complaints handling; and £187 for inconvenience);

 

57.2         review the resident’s claims for compensation for: damage to his laptop and dresser; antihistamines; and carpet cleaning (with reference to relevant documentary evidence such as receipts, photographs, etc). It should confirm its decisions in writing, giving reasons for its decisions with reference to its policies and procedures.

 

  1. These orders are made on the understanding that the resident has not been compensated for any of these items from the freeholder/managing agents insurers. If he has then such amounts may be deducted from the above.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:

 

59.1         Review its handling of the resident’s second report of a leak in light of this investigation;

 

59.2         Review its staffs’ training needs in relation to their understanding of its legal responsibilities under its tenancy agreements and with regard to their application of its complaints and compensation policies and its compensation procedure to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords (if this has not been done recently) at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.