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

Southwark Council (202210574)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210574

Southwark Council

27 March 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. The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, and subsequent damage in the property.
    2. The residents decant.
  2. The Ombudsman also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The residents were joint secure tenants of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat where they lived with their 2 children. For the avoidance of doubt, both tenants have been referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.  The landlord has referred to the resident as “disabled” and “vulnerable” in its records.
  2. On 12 April 2021 a Pre-Action Protocol letter was submitted by the resident’s solicitor to the landlord for a Housing Conditions Claim. They stated the following:
    1. That the resident had complained about water leakage for 3 years and it was affecting every room apart from the bedrooms.
    2. That the local MP issued a letter to the landlord in 2020 regarding damage to the property.
    3. The landlord’s failure to rectify the problem had exacerbated the resident’s medical condition.
    4. The landlord last visited the property on 7 April 2021; however, the resident had experienced further leaks on 8 April 2021. They requested the landlord inspect the property as soon as possible.
    5. Damage from water seepage had been caused to cables which prevented engineers from installing a gas meter and they described it as a dangerous situation. On many occasions, the resident had experienced electrical sparks and power outage, and the landlord had to disconnect the electricity due to the risk posed.
    6. They asked the landlord to confirm if it intended to carry out the remedial works or whether they should jointly instruct an expert to inspect the property.
  3. The resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on 21 May 2021 and said they had sent a further 2 letters since the pre-action protocol and received no response. They said the resident continued to suffer damage and ill health due to leaks in the living room, kitchen and bathroom which was restricting their use of the property.
  4. An inspection of the property was conducted on 3 June 2021. It was not a physical inspection due to COVID-19 precautions; it was undertaken with the resident via video call. The inspection outlined that further work was required to investigate the cause of the various leaks in the property. It said from reviewing the repair records over the last 3 years there were several incidents logged for the property above the resident’s which could explain it. The inspection outlined the works required in the kitchen, living room, bathroom, hallway, and rear bedroom. A schedule of works was provided for the resident’s property and the property above, with an estimated timeframe of 14 weeks. It said the works should be agreed ASAP pending COVID-19 precautions.
  5. On 24 August 2021 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to state that the leaks had extended to 1 of the bedrooms, alongside the kitchen, living room, bathroom, and hallway. It said those areas of the property were uninhabitable as the continuing leaks were causing a risk of electrocution. They requested an urgent response and for the resident to be moved to temporary accommodation. The resident and their children were moved to temporary accommodation on 27 August 2021. An inspection which took place at the property on 31 August 2021 stated that the leaks were bad, and the ceiling was collapsing. It is understood that the resident moved back shortly after.
  6. The resident continued to report the leaks and subsequent damage to the landlord. On 18 May 2022 the resident’s solicitor stated that the continued leaks had put the resident’s health and safety at risk, especially in view of the young children. They said the property was full of mould which was challenging the resident’s health and requested the landlord offer re-housing within the next 7 days. The landlord’s solicitor confirmed on the same day that the landlord would offer temporary accommodation to the family. They said they were waiting for confirmation from the landlord as to when the family could be moved. There was no further correspondence provided in relation to this.
  7. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 9 September 2022 following reports from the resident that they had made a formal complaint and had not received a response. The Ombudsman requested the landlord provide a stage 1 response by 23 September 2022. The landlord did not provide the response and the Ombudsman sent a further request on 14 February 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 February 2023 which stated:
    1. An apology for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered of £100 in compensation.
    2. The leaks began in April 2021 and were thought to be coming from the flat above. There were difficulties accessing the flat above and a pre-injunction letter was sent to the neighbour on 19 April 2021.
    3. It outlined the work undertaken since to identify the source of the leaks and said temporary accommodation was offered in August 2021. It stated that the source of the leaks was identified in December 2021 and there were no reports of leaks for 6 months following that. It said the cause of the leaks was concluded again in June 2022. It said a plumber was requested in October 2022, but the resident did not provide access.
    4. An offer had been made as part of the disrepair case and it had not received a response to the offer. The landlord said it was arranging for a building surveyor to attend both properties and a site meeting would take place following that. The complaint was upheld.
  8. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 10 March 2023. The resident’s solicitor said that the leaks were first reported in 2016 and had affected every room apart from 1 bedroom in which the family resided. They said that 2 weeks ago the leaks affected all electrical installations resulting in the landlord providing temporary light fittings. That the resident remains at risk of electrocution and there was a risk to their health from condensation and mould. They said the leaks had extended to the balcony. The solicitor confirmed that they sought immediate repairs, for the resident to be relocated for the duration of the repairs, and compensation for destroyed appliances and general damages.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2023. It said an inspection of the resident’s property and the property above took place on 5 April 2023. It was recommended that the neighbour in the above flat be placed in temporary accommodation while repairs were undertaken. The landlord confirmed an appointment had been made for 3 May 2023 in which it expected the water penetration would be resolved. It upheld the complaint and said an offer for damages had been made.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. They said the leaks were ongoing and the landlord did not address the immediate concerns or offer them appropriate accommodation until the issue was remedied.

Post internal complaints procedure.

  1. On 26 June 2023 the local councillor wrote to the landlord to state that they originally contacted the landlord about the issue in 2018. They had visited the property recently and was shocked at what they saw. They said there was no electrics in the hallway, part of the living room ceiling collapsed a few years ago and a wooden board had been placed over it by the landlord, with no attempt at a repair. The wallpaper in every room apart from 1 had come off the walls due to damp from the ongoing leaks. They said all the family were sleeping in 1 room. They acknowledged that it had been difficult to trace the leaks but said it does not detract from the conditions they have been living in for 5 years and the toll on their health. The councillor stated that the 2 teenage children had to share a room with their parents, and they were too ashamed to bring their friends to the home. The councillor asked why the landlord had allowed them to continue living in those conditions and not found them another home.
  2. In August 2023, the resident’s solicitor confirmed that the situation was ongoing, and the landlord had promised to move the family over a month ago but had not done so. The resident was decanted to a temporary property in December 2023 where they were given a non-secure weekly tenancy for them to remain in temporary accommodation while they bid for a new home. The landlord said the resident would be placed on band 1, with 2 rent free weeks as a goodwill gesture. It offered £5,000 in damages and said no further works would be carried out at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The landlord has only provided repair records from 2020 onwards. From the information provided from the resident’s solicitor and the councillor, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident had been reporting the leaks since at least 2018. The landlord has not provided any evidence to refute this. Therefore, although the Ombudsman has been unable to assess the repairs since 2018, consideration has been made towards the impact of the reported leaks from 2018.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that in April 2021, the resident’s solicitor issued a housing claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims, but court proceedings have not been started. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court. This approach is further explained in a guidance note. This means that the complaint is in our jurisdiction.
  3. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting their health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, and subsequent damage in the property.

  1. Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that:
    1. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
    2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
    3. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
    4. It meets the current statutory minimum for housing. Dwellings which do not are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (Category 1) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  2. The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on electrical hazards, damp and mould, and structural collapse.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs as following: Emergency (within 24 hours), urgent (within 3 working days), and non-urgent (within 20 working days). Total loss of electrical power and any leak that is a danger to the structure of the building is categorised as emergency. Damp is non-urgent.
  4. The repair records provided by the landlord only date back to 2020, however, the inspection report dated 3 June 2021 refers to reviewing repair records since 2018. It is important for landlords to consider all previous repair logs whenever a related complaint is raised. The landlord should have considered the matter as arising from the date the resident had provided in their complaint and if it disputed the information, it should have explained why.
  5. It should be noted that it can take more than 1 attempt to resolve issues such as leaks, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue. This is especially relevant in a block of flats where multiple properties may be involved. However, in this case, the delay in identifying and confirming the cause of the leaks from 2018 was extensive and unreasonable. The leaks remain unresolved, and this resulted in the permanent decant of the resident from the property in December 2023. This was likely to have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is evident in the time and trouble spent pursuing a resolution and updates via the local MP, councillor, and their solicitor.
  6. The disrepair claim was sent on 12 April 2021. It outlined the issues the resident was experiencing which included the ongoing leak, damaged belongings, electrical sparks, power outage, and deteriorating health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident within 24 hours, in line with its repairs policy. On 21 May 2021, the solicitor wrote to the landlord for the 4th time since the disrepair claim as they had not received any response and confirmed the issues were ongoing. From the records provided, the landlord did not speak to the resident until 27 May 2021, following a further report of the uncontainable leak. It is not acceptable that the landlord did not respond to the resident or the solicitor within a reasonable timeframe. The delay in response indicates a lack of empathy towards the situation and no consideration towards the risks posed to the resident.
  7. An inspection of the property took place virtually on 3 June 2021. While the inspection outlined the work required in relation to tracing the leaks and the damage caused because of the leaks, it did not consider the risks to the resident or their children. Following the report, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment based on the findings, HHSRS guidance, and the vulnerabilities of the resident to determine if the property was safe. The landlord has confirmed that no formal risk assessments were taken throughout the case. It was not until the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on 24 August 2021 to reiterate the issues and the reasons why the property was uninhabitable, that the landlord decanted the resident on 27 August 2021. It is concerning that the ceiling started to collapse 4 days after the decant.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that in December 2021 it concluded that the source of the leaks was the washing machine in the property above. It said there were no further reports until June 2022 when it was concluded again that the leaks were due to the washing machine. The landlord’s records in December 2021 state that there were still sporadic leaks into the resident’s property. It said that the washing machine in the property above had been disconnected and that the leaks still occurred but were not as bad. It said the resident had stated that they were still “getting bad leaks”. The landlord’s records show reports of leaks, ceiling collapse, loss of electrics, and a request to be re-housed due to the risks in February, April, and May 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate and inappropriate. It is evident from the records that the leaks continued and therefore, the cause had not been found.
  9. In the landlord’s correspondence and reports from its contractors, reference was made to the damp and mould in the property. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the landlord attempted any repairs in relation to damp and mould. It is acknowledged that without remedying the leaks, it may have been difficult to complete lasting remedial works to damp and mould in the property. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate any proactive attempts to mitigate the risks such as providing dehumidifiers or carrying out a mould wash.
  10. It is clear from the records that the landlord often experienced difficulties in gaining access to the flat above to help identify the source of the leaks. The landlord stated that it sent a pre-injunction letter to the neighbour on 19 April 2021. However, the records show that the issues with gaining access to the flat above continued. It is not clear what other attempts, in line with its procedures, were made by the landlord to gain access to the property. While the Ombudsman can empathise with the landlord’s difficulties with accessing the neighbour’s property, the landlord should have recognised the prolonged impact on the resident and considered that within its decision making.
  11. It is reasonable to conclude that the family found it difficult to avoid the leaks and the associated risks given the multiple rooms affected. The resident had stated to the Ombudsman that they struggled to cook for their family as the cooker was electric and the leaks had gone on to it. They said the situation significantly affected the family relationship and their children would often not want to return home, as they did not enjoy being in the property.
  12. Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, and subsequent damage in the property. To address these concerns, a wider order has been made in accordance with paragraph 54f of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. In light of the serious failings in ensuring the resident and their family could live in a decent and safe home, the amount awarded is significant.
  13. The Ombudsman has ordered £15,375 for loss of use and enjoyment of the property. This is calculated based upon 20% of the resident’s weekly rent (approx. £125) from 22 December 2018 (the date provided by the resident’s solicitor for when the resident began reporting the leaks into the property) and then 80% from 24 August 2021, up until the resident’s permanent decant from the property on 8 December 2023. The increase to 80% is attributed to the solicitor’s email on 24 August 2021 which stated that only 1 room in the property was habitable. The Ombudsman has also ordered £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to properly inspect the properties safety and suitability for habitation.

The landlord’s handling of the residents decant.

  1. The landlord’s decant policy states that the procedure for emergency accommodation is:
    1. Possible need for temporary accommodation identified.
    2. Case information referred to resident services officer (RSO).
    3. RSO gathers relevant risk assessment form and case details to assess.
    4. Refer to area manager if temporary accommodation required.
    5. Approval – if approved, refer back to RSO to manage case.
  2. It states that if temporary accommodation is not suitable, the RSO and other agencies/teams should work with the tenant to explore other options.
  3. The decant policy also outlines that it will agree the temporary accommodation termination terms before tenants move into temporary accommodation, which will include the terms under which it will continue and exiting arrangements.
  4. Where appropriate, landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property (decanting) to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions before a decant is considered.
  5. While the period prior to April 2021 has not been assessed in this report, it is important to recognise that the resident had been reporting the leaks since at least 2018. Given the period that the issue had been ongoing and the reported deterioration in health for the resident, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had regularly assessed the condition of the property to determine whether it remained suitable for habitation.
  6. The resident and their family were temporarily decanted in August 2021; however, the landlord has not provided any information on how it assessed the need for the decant at the time. It was not clear how long the resident was to be decanted for and what works were required in the property to enable them to return. Without this information, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to understand how the landlord made the decision to decant the resident at the time.
  7. The resident stated that they returned to the property a week after the decant in August 2021. The resident said they were placed in a bed and breakfast (B&B), but the 3 rooms provided were in different areas of the B&B, with no linking doors. The resident said this was not appropriate as she had 3 children with her at the time who could not be left in rooms by themselves. She said there was no breakfast or parking at the B&B, and that they had to leave before 7am to avoid a parking ticket. She said the B&B was damp and they were all in 1 room, so they decided to return to the property. She said she informed the landlord of the issues faced but received no response.
  8. The landlord’s records are conflicting in that it suggests the resident remained at the B&B until at least December 2021. However, its internal correspondence in December 2021 also refers to the resident requesting to be re-housed due to living in an uninhabitable property. It is not appropriate that the landlord’s records do not clarify how long the decant lasted for and what was communicated to the resident in relation to the decant, in line with its policy.
  9. On 18 May 2022 the landlord’s solicitor had contacted the resident’s solicitor to confirm that the landlord would arrange temporary accommodation for the resident. No further information has been provided in relation to this and there are no records to suggest the family were decanted. It is not acceptable that the landlord determined a decant was necessary and then did not follow through with it. This suggests that the resident and their family remained in a property which was not safe or suitable for them to be in.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that temporary accommodation was offered to the resident in August 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expanded on the outcome of its offer and how it had previously assessed the resident’s concerns. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that following an inspection on 5 April 2023, it was recommended that the neighbour in the flat above was decanted while the internal repairs were undertaken. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the inspection report; however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline whether it assessed the resident’s request for a decant and the outcome. It is disappointing that it did not do so and would have been frustrating for the resident.
  11. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has paid regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of the complaint. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The resident’s ability to enjoy their home, family and private life was compromised in this case, and it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord failed to pay due consideration to this in its handling of the residents decant.
  12. On several occasions over the course of the complaint, the resident’s solicitor had voiced their concern that the property was no longer safe to live in and asked for the landlord to assist with this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this in its complaint responses, complete risk assessments to assess the situation, and communicate with the resident. This would have been in line with its policies, and it was not appropriate that it failed to do so. It is also unclear what decision making took place regarding the decant in August 2021 and the offer of a decant in May 2022. For those reasons, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents decant.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. It is to respond to a complainant at stage 1 within 15 working days and within 25 working days at stage 2.
  2. It defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction about any of our services requiring a response”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states the following:
    1. In considering delay and distress, a major impact is defined as a serious failure in service standards. “It could be the severity of the event or a persistent failure over a protracted period of time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint.” For major impact regarding delay the landlord states £1000 per annum should be awarded. For major impact regarding distress, the policy states that it should take into account the severity, length of time suffered, number of people affected and vulnerability. It suggests £1000 per annum for major impact related to distress.
    2. The landlord suggests a maximum of £250 to be awarded for time and trouble. It states that it is not the same as delay or distress and it should consider the extent of inconvenience a complainant has experienced to get a resolution to the problem.
    3. Loss of non-monetary benefit is described as “where access to a service or facility has been restricted or denied. For example, loss of the use of a room because of a major leak that has not been rectified in line with our own performance standards.”
    4. It states that “in some cases, where the complexity of the issue or the vulnerability of the complainant lead to a professional person being required then consideration should be given to the reimbursement of professional fees. This would only be considered in exceptional circumstances.”
  4. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s complaint handling timescales are not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out 10 working days to respond at the first stage and 20 working days at the second stage. The Complaint Handling Code will become statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order in relation to this has been made. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
  5. It is unclear when the resident’s formal complaint was received. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that a stage 1 complaint was requested but was not raised due to the legal disrepair claim. The Ombudsman’s position with regards to complaints that are also the subject of a housing disrepair claim is clear, in that they should be handled in line with the landlord’s complaint policy unless legal proceedings have been issued. This is further reinforced by the pre-action protocol itself, which encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, and states that litigation should be viewed as a last resort. The landlord’s failure to issue a formal response until 23 February 2023, despite the interventions of the Ombudsman, was unreasonable.
  6. The resident’s solicitor escalated the complaint on 10 March 2023 and the Ombudsman had to intervene again following a lack of response from the landlord. The landlord then acknowledged the complaint and said a response would be received by 17 May 2023. In its acknowledgement it did not apologise for the delay and instead incorrectly stated that it had received the escalation request on 17 April 2023. The Ombudsman had to intervene again to request that the deadline be amended to 3 May 2023. The stage 2 response was provided on 2 May 2023. It is disappointing that the Ombudsman had to intervene on more than 1 occasion to request that the landlord follow its own policy.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response letter was sent to the resident on 2 May 2023, and consisted of an overview of its next steps in relation to the associated works. It acknowledged the lengthy history of repairs but didn’t offer any empathy for the conditions the resident was living in. It also failed to demonstrate any lessons learnt.
  8. The repairs to the property were still ongoing when the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 2 May 2023 and remained the case until the resident was moved to temporary accommodation on 13 December 2023. The landlord’s offer of compensation at the time was £5,000 to settle the disrepair claim. While the landlord did not outline what period it had awarded the compensation to and from, it did not dispute the stage 2 escalation which claimed that the leaks started in 2016. The compensation offered was not reasonable as it was not in line with its compensation policy.
  9. The prolonged period and level of impact on the resident was such that this aspect of the case has also constituted severe maladministration. It is positive that the landlord did apologise for the delay and did make an offer of compensation, however, this was not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord failed to show consideration for the impact on the resident and their family, and it did not consider its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response. As such, the Ombudsman has made additional orders of compensation to reflect this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks, and subsequent damage in the property.
    2. The residents decant.
    3. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified. The Chief Executive should write this apology.
  2. The landlord must pay a total of £16,875 to the resident. This includes the payment of £5,000 already offered. This is comprised of:
    1. £15,375 for the loss of use and enjoyment of the property caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of ongoing leaks, and subsequent damage in the property.
    2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to properly inspect the safety of the property and suitability for habitation.
    3. £500 for the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint. This is inclusive of the £100 the landlord offered in its stage 1 response.
  3. The landlord must carry out a survey of the property and create an action plan for how it intends to resolve the leak and/or make the property safe if it has not already done so. This is to ensure the safety of other residents residing in the block of flats.
  4. In line with its policy and on provision of receipts, the landlord is to consider reimbursement of the resident’s professional fees due to the extensive delay in resolving the issue.
  5. The landlord must provide its insurance details to the resident to enable them to make a claim for any belongings which were damaged because of the leaks.
  6. The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
  7. The Ombudsman is aware of other investigations that have noted similar findings. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 54f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a case review in relation to the failures identified in this report. The landlord should share the findings of its review with its board of directors and the Ombudsman. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of the specific failings of not risk assessing, not considering a decant, and not responding to complaints within timescales. This is made with the expectation that no one else will be subjected to reporting leaks for longer than necessary and that residents should not have to resort to legal representation to force a solution.
    2. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last 6 months where adequate redress may not have been provided following a leak. It should outline the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to any residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation in line with its policy and the level of detriment the resident experienced.
    3. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it should ensure lessons are learnt. It should therefore endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review.
  8. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above wider order within 12 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The resident had to surrender their previous tenancy due to the disrepair issues at the property and have since been displaced into temporary accommodation. As set out in the landlord’s policies, it states that home loss payment or disturbance allowance will be agreed when a resident is permanently moved due to disrepair. If the landlord has not done so already it should advise the resident of how to claim for a home loss payment and/or disturbance allowance. If it does not believe the resident is entitled to either of these payments, it should write to the resident and explain why.
  2. The landlord should support the resident where it is able to ensure the circumstances for rehousing are effectively understood.