Tower Hamlets Council (202013924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013924

Tower Hamlets Homes

30 July 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s water ingress and mould reports.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a local authority, whose housing stock is managed by an Arms Length Management Organisation (referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report). The property is a flat in a block.
The resident has described his repairs reports as ‘damp.’ This Service notes that ‘damp’ may refer to specific, serious structural defects which may require specialist investigation and treatment, which there is no evidence was considered applicable here. This Service therefore refers to the issue as ‘water ingress’ unless referred to at points by the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for the structure and exterior of its properties, while leaseholders are responsible for internal repairs and are required to contact their insurance in the event of internal damage. A responsive repairs service is delivered that is reliant on customer’s reports that repairs need doing, and repairs such as leaks, leaking roofs, walls and guttering come under the routine repairs priority which has a target of 20 working days. Pre-inspections are not included in this target and factors such as requirement for scaffolding can also cause unavoidable delay. A “right first time” repairs service is aimed to be delivered which avoids further visits or ‘recalls’ and the same repair being reported in the following six months.
After an informal query stage, the landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure in which it responds at each stage within 20 working days. It advises it will not accept complaints where a cause of a complaint is more than six months old.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policies confirm it aims to recognise and address where service delivery has not met expected standards, and considers a range of compensation ranges, while the repairs policy confirms it compensates £10 for missed appointments. They advise certain matters are dealt with outside the procedures, with service charge disputes managed through a separate procedure, and insurance claims dealt with by the local authority’s insurance claims team.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale,” while Paragraph 39(e) advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
The resident complains about a timeframe of 20 years and supplies correspondence from 2001 and 2003. In accordance with the Scheme as well as the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that go back 20 years, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
Seven months after the landlord’s original final response in April 2020, the resident reported similar issues in November 2020, after which the landlord carried out repairs in March 2021 and responded to an insurance/compensation claim from the resident in May 2021. The landlord has treated these matters as a continuation of the complaint.
This investigation therefore focuses on events from August 2019, six months before the resident made a formal complaint in January 2020, up until responses from the landlord on 24 May and 30 June 2021. Events that pre–date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

Prior to August 2019, six months before the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord’s records (which were noted to go back to 2005) show it responded to reports of water ingress in 2009, 2015, 2016, and March to May 2019.
On 5 December 2019, after the resident made a further report, the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to trace and remedy a leak coming into a bedroom, which was raised as a non-priority repair with a target timeframe of 20 working days. After one inspection attempt the landlord did not notify the resident about, and one it did, the inspection was rebooked for 14 January 2020 which the resident reported no one attended. Following this, the landlord noted there were no records to show the contractor was on their way and proof of attendance was requested, although a further outcome to this is unclear. An inspection was then rebooked for 20 January 2020, which identified there was no water leak, and made a recommendation for a front balcony area to be looked at.
On 23 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to obtain an update and was informed the report for the 20 January 2020 visit could not be located. The same day, he complained to the landlord. He complained that he had contacted the landlord to resolve ‘damp’ in a bedroom and over a front door for 20 years, most recently in December 2019, and the cause/issue had never been properly diagnosed or resolved. He stated this was incompetent and negligent on the part of the landlord. He also complained about the landlord continuing to charge him for service charges and major works while the flat was still not dry.
On 24 January 2020, after the inspection four days earlier, the landlord raised a new works order for its contractor to investigate a balcony as recommended. This was raised as a non-priority repair with a target timeframe of 20 working days and the same day, the resident was updated that access to the above property and balcony was being arranged for an inspection. The resident’s account advises of dissatisfaction with how the contractor handled/arranged the inspection and that this required his input. On 30 January 2020, the contractor informed the resident that the inspection was booked and he should call again on 6 February 2020.
On 5 February 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended and identified a balcony of another flat was leaking into the resident’s flat, due to a crack to a membrane covering, and also identified brickwork required repointing. The report recommended to erect scaffolding, renew the balcony with a liquid coating, clear an outlet and repoint brickwork. From 6 February 2020, the resident called the contractor for updates and was informed the report had not yet been received but it was thought a quote had been sent to the landlord for approval.
The resident’s account advises he was unhappy with the lack of detail and he expressed dissatisfaction that included call handlers not knowing what was going on and jobs being raised and closed by the contractor without follow up. The landlord’s records advise that the contractor had closed jobs because these were to try to locate leaks, which had not been found after checking the roof and the plumbing of an above property, and that they had recommended further inspection.
On 7 February 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the repairs issues he complained about required investigation by the landlord’s repairs inspector, and it asked if he could provide access for a visit on 20 February 2020.
On 11 February 2020, the resident’s account advises he spoke to the contractor, who informed him about works such as cracks to brickwork and scaffolding being required, but were unable to tell him about the cause of ‘damp,’ remedial action or the timescale. On 12 February 2020, the resident noted he contacted both the contractor and the landlord but indicated they referred him to each other.
On 20 February 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response.
1. It noted the resident’s longstanding reports of issues and explained action in 2016 which appeared to resolve issues.
2. It noted that the resident recently reported reoccurring issues and that on the contractor’s attendance, cracks to the balcony and brickwork of the property above were found. It explained that following emails and photos provided by the resident, its repairs inspector was carrying out an inspection, after which contractors would be instructed to carry out any necessary works.
3. It apologised for inconvenience caused and the return of the issues.
On 21 February 2020, following its repairs inspector’s visit, the landlord raised a repair to carry out asphalt repair and brickwork repointing to balconies, and confirmed this to the resident on 27 February 2020. It advised its contractors were in the process of arranging scaffolding and that in due course, the contractors would contact the resident and works would commence.
On 6 March 2020, the resident emailed the complaints team to report a soaking wet wall, water running down power cables and water dripping out of a power socket. He expressed lack of confidence in the proposed repair work, and noted that this was three months after reporting the issue and involved repair to asphalt laid only a few years prior. He requested a date for works, justification why these would solve the issue, and for a gully on the above balcony to be changed which was previously recommended but never followed up. On 12 March 2020, the resident queried a lack of response.
On 19 March 2020, the landlord’s complaints team apologised for the delayed response, due to staff absence, and confirmed its contractor had been contacted to update them and the resident. The resident advised he was unwilling to deal directly with the contractor as they had been uncommunicative, unhelpful and unprofessional, and he requested escalation of his complaint. Following this, the landlord took steps to escalate the complaint, although it updated the resident that the response would likely be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
In April 2020, the landlord noted that normal priority works had been suspended due to the pandemic, but it took steps to discuss the resident’s concerns with its repairs department and review whether the works should be treated with higher priority, due to issues raised such as the electrics.
On 20 April 2020, the landlord’s records confirm its contractor carried out works which involved a resurface to the above balcony using liquid applied roofing; repointing to the inside balcony wall; and the unblocking and ‘redressing’ of an outlet with liquid applied roofing, followed assessment of the gully. The landlord internally noted that assessment of the effectiveness of the works would be done via a dye test and monitoring of incoming reports following rainfall.
On 28 April 2020, the landlord issued its final response.
1. It explained that it was unable to investigate complaints dating back 20 years.
2. It noted the resident’s reports, his request to change a gully on a balcony above the affected bedroom, and that he reported he had not been informed of outcomes to previous inspections or the cause of the ingress.
3. It advised that after an inspection on 20 February 2020, works were raised to repoint, renew asphalt, and renew skirting, on a rear balcony; and to repoint, resurface, and unblock an outlet, on a balcony above the affected bedroom.
4. It advised that initially the works were placed on hold due to the suspension of non-essential works during the Covid-19 pandemic, but that after reviewing the resident’s concerns, these were progressed and contractors attended on 20 April 2020 after erection of scaffolding. It explained that several defects to the above balcony were identified, including missing pointing and surface defects which allowed water to absorb into the structure and the resident’s bedroom. It explained there was also an outlet blockage which could have led to water breaches. It confirmed that the same day, the contractors repaired brickwork; resurfaced the balcony; and unblocked and redressed the outlet.
5. It advised water/dye tests would be carried out to identify if works were effective, and if this showed the issue was not resolved contractors would re-attend to assess the situation further. It advised it was satisfied repairs had been carried out to resolve the ingress in the resident’s recent complaint, and asked him to report if further ingress was experienced.
6. It acknowledged that it and its contractor could have communicated better, which had been raised internally, and it apologised for this.
The same day, the landlord’s records advise a dye test was carried out and there was also heavy rain. It was noted that there was no answer to the property’s door but there had been no immediate reports that repairs had failed.
On 6 May 2020, the landlord issued a follow up to its final response in which it confirmed works were completed and offered £300 compensation.
On 10 November 2020, over six months later, the resident made a further report, following which the landlord raised a repair for “a containable leak causing damp into property, possibly from guttering.” It has been noted that this affected an hallway, a bedroom and a living room. The landlord’s records advise its contractor inspected on 19 and 20 November 2020, then sealed the doorstep with applied liquid roofing on 6 December 2020.
Following this, the resident made reports that walls were still ‘damp’ and water ingress had let to deterioration of electric insulation cables in the wall and recurrent blown fuses. He also advised that the landlord’s leasehold insurance provider would not accept his claim, and asked it to cover the cost of internal repairs as it was liable “in the event of the repair cost not being covered by the insurance.”
On 7 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that an inspection had been arranged for 28 January 2021, which it explained may be a telephone inspection due to current restrictions, and that it would increase its previous compensation offer by £50. The resident responded that this did not recognise costs and inconvenience incurred over two decades.
On 15 January 2021, earlier than stated, the landlord’s repairs inspector attended and identified an above balcony gully outlet was the cause of the problem. Tests to confirm this involved the gully outlet to the above balcony being blocked and the balcony being flooded with dyed water, which resulted in water spilling out from the outlet and running down the external walls adjacent affected rooms in the resident’s property. The same test was carried out to the resident’s balcony, which resulted in a similar impact on the property below. The same day, the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to erect scaffold, ‘kango-out’ outlets to each balcony, sleeve them and renew the asphalt with applied liquid roofing on both balconies.
On 14 February 2021, the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord for £3,346.33, which comprised:
1. £519.25 for half the costs of a consumer unit replacement.
2. £977.08 for repair to a damaged electrical system.
3. £1,859 for redecoration of affected areas.
The resident subsequently informed the landlord that a claim was refused by insurers as he did not live at the property, and around this time records advise he chased the works, reporting one of his bedrooms had not had power for months which his tenant was unhappy with. In response to this, he was asked to bear with the landlord as there was significant backlog for external works.
Between 19 and 24 March 2021, the landlord’s records advise it completed the works identified on 15 January 2021, and after outlets were tested no water penetration was evident. It was noted that after this a period of internal drying out was required, which was the resident’s responsibility.
On 14 May 2021, following concerns raised by the resident, the landlord’s repairs inspector tested by pouring more water in/around the outlet to the above balcony, from which it was concluded there was no further water penetration. Other areas of concern the resident raised were reviewed and it was concluded there were no further works required from the landlord’s repairs viewpoint. The landlord’s repairs inspector informed the resident of the outcome to the inspection and summarised the actions it had taken.
On 17 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord details of the insurance claim that had been declined, and added that he had paid £750 in compensation to tenants that month, and would need to add lost rent he would incur at £2,100 per calendar month. The landlord and the local authority’s insurance department internally discussed this, in which it was noted there was no evidence that penetration had been ongoing for a lengthy period or that the extent of damage to the property rendered the property uninhabitable.
On 19 May 2021, the local authority’s insurance department informed the resident that it would offer £5,000 in full and final settlement of his claim and advised him he may wish to take legal advice. The landlord confirmed to the resident that this comprised:
1. £3,346.33 for the insurance claim submitted by the resident.
2. £750 for the compensation payment he had made to his tenants.
3. £903.67 remainder as a gesture of goodwill for his inconvenience.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident after he turned down the offer. It noted he sought £7,846, which included additional estimated plumbing works, current lost rent, and £900 compensation. It apologised for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by a delay diagnosing the issue, and offered £800, separate to the £5,000 insurance claim offered by the local authority’s insurance department. It highlighted that it was advised to take out landlord insurance when subletting to cover loss of rent for such eventualities.
The same day, the resident explained that the most recent water ingress had caused significant time and trouble in emails, calls and meetings with the landlord, and significant stress. He explained the flat had never been dry for 20 years and that for compensation for service he had received, he should be refunded 25% of the £40,000 he had paid in service charges and major works. On 31 May 2021, the resident added that he believed he needed a dehumidifier to help dry out the property, and advised he would need to increase his insurance claim.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord’s repairs inspector made an offer to supply a dehumidifier, which the resident accepted.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the delays replying and resolving the complaint.
1. It noted the local authority’s insurance department had offered £5,000 in settlement of the insurance claim and advised any queries relating to this needed to be directed to them.
2. It noted it had separately offered £800 for inconvenience caused by delays rectifying the source of the water ingress, which equated to £10 per week since the complaint raised on 23 January 2020.
3. It noted the repairs were completed on 24 March 2021 and tests were done to confirm these were effective.
4. It noted that it understood he had been informed it would take time for walls to dry out and that a repairs inspector was visiting to supply a dehumidifier.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord’s repairs inspector noted they dropped off two dehumidifiers, identified no issues with the works and confirmed walls were drying out.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service and explains that issues just before Christmas 2020 resulted in power trips in a bedroom, after which the property needed to dry before being able to carry out internal repairs. He highlights that the landlord has charged him in the past and present for major works, despite still having a wet bedroom. He explains he has endured distress and inconvenience due to the handling of the issue by the landlord over 20 years, and feels compensation should consider 20 years of service charges paid to the landlord where it has fallen short of meeting its responsibilities.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate reports of water ingress and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
After reports in December 2019, the landlord’s contractor took steps to investigate a repair raised to trace and remedy a water leak, and on 20 January 2020 it was identified there was no water leak and further investigation was recommended. This demonstrates the landlord took steps to investigate the issue and it was reasonable to recommend further inspection when no issues were initially found. However, the eventual inspection exceeded the 20 working day target of 7 January 2020 and the resident reported one arranged inspection was missed, which was not in accordance with the repairs policy.
Four days after the inspection, on 24 January 2020, the landlord raised a repair for a balcony to be investigated as recommended. On 5 February 2020, its contractor then inspected an above property and an above balcony, and identified a number of works which match the description of works which were eventually done. This demonstrates the landlord conducted appropriate further investigation in a reasonably timely manner, also taking into consideration that this relied on access to an above flat.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s repairs inspector carried out a visit on 20 February 2020 (arranged on 7 February 2020), following which it confirmed works would be progressed which match the description of works which were eventually done. This was a reasonable response to concerns expressed by the resident about effectiveness of works, as well as requests he made around this time for a surveyor to inspect. This demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for an additional inspection by its own repairs specialist in a timely manner.
On 20 April 2020, the landlord then completed identified works and the following week, took steps to test the effectiveness of these. After this, there appears to be no further reports of water ingress for seven months, which is in accordance with the repairs policy aim for the same repair not to be reported in the following six months. The works occurred 40 working days after the landlord’s repairs inspector’s visit, outside the 20 working day target, however the repairs policy advises requirements such as scaffolding can cause unavoidable delay, which was the case here. The period also overlapped with the start of the Covid–19 pandemic, and the works were initially suspended before being progressed after further review.
The above overall demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to review, progress, complete and monitor works in a timely manner after its inspection, although there were initial delays and a missed appointment when the repair was first raised. The resident also clearly experienced some frustration when he contacted the landlord and was unable to obtain updates, including on 6 February 2020 when he had been previously advised to call and when he contacted the complaints team in March 2020.
After a further report on 10 November 2020, seven months later, the landlord’s records advise its contractor inspected on 19 and 20 November 2020 and then sealed a doorstep with applied liquid roofing on 8 December 2020. This demonstrates the landlord responded to the report and completed initial works in a timely manner and within a 20 working day target.
On 15 January 2020, the landlord’s repairs inspector then carried out an inspection 26 working days after the works, and identified repairs that the landlord and resident’s accounts advise were completed 19 to 24 March 2021. Although these were 49 working days after the inspection, the landlord’s records advise they informed the resident they were experiencing a significant backlog of external works. The works were then identified to be effective on 24 March 2021, 14 May 2021 and 5 July 2021. This Service recognises the challenges the landlord has had in completing the works due to Covid-19, and this appears to demonstrate that the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect, complete and monitor the further works in a timeframe that was not overly unreasonable.
In this case the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged service failures in its management of this case and offered at least £800, excluding a separate insurance offer. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment therefore considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
Following the resident’s original complaint, the landlord responded in accordance with its complaints procedure; apologised; explained issues previously identified; and confirmed an inspection from its own repairs specialists. When the resident escalated his complaint, the final response was delayed, however the landlord made him aware it may be; explained it could not investigate historic complaints; confirmed works completed; confirmed what monitoring would take place; confirmed how to report further issues if the works were not effective; and offered £300 compensation.
The landlord’s responses were generally reasonable and it was reasonable not to investigate historic issues (as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted) and this is in accordance with its policy and the Ombudsman’s own Scheme. This Service notes the landlord saw no evidence that issues were ongoing over a lengthy period. However, this Service was reliant on the resident to provide a copy of the landlord’s 6 May 2020 follow up final response, as well as to provide background information about the landlord’s actions in November and December 2020, which is not appropriate as the landlord should be able to supply these as part of its obligation to maintain and supply comprehensive records. A recommendation has therefore been made in relation to this.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays and communication issues, and offered assurances that the resident’s experiences were being used to improve service, which was appropriate. The landlord’s records do show that the resident reported a missed appointment on 14 January 2020 for which the outcomes are unclear, and while it is the resident’s choice they live a distance from the property, the landlord could have demonstrated it investigated this missed appointment and considered payment of £10, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused and in accordance with its policy. However, in May 2020 the landlord offered £300 that reasonably covers this.
After issues reoccurred and repairs completed, the landlord offered appropriate assistance with an insurance claim. As previously explained, the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme, and Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
It is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to fully assess the insurance claim, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion the action taken by the landlord in relation to this appears to be reasonable, as it has liaised with the insurance department in order for discretion to be exercised and for an insurance compensation offer to be made. This offers in excess of the insurance claim made and covers claimed costs, while losses in relation to rental income is not something this Service would normally itself order, as this would be expected to be claimed against landlord insurance if the property was let. The local authority’s insurance department recommended the resident to seek legal advice about its response to the claim, which appears reasonable if he remains unhappy with this.
In follow up complaint responses on 24 May and 30 June 2021, the landlord has apologised for delays, provided industrial strength dehumidifiers and offered £800, which the resident is unhappy with as he feels this does not reflect the service failures. He feels that he should be compensated 25% of £40,000 (£10,000) to reflect lack of service for service charges he has paid over 20 years. As outlined at Paragraph 6 of this report, we have not looked at the last 20 years and the Ombudsman’s assessment has focused on the landlord’s actions since this complaint was raised.
Moving on to the landlord’s offer of £800, it is noted that the landlord has treated the resident’s complaint since January 2020 as a continuous complaint, however this Service sees that there appear to be two repairs periods, between December 2019 and April 2020, and from November 2020 to March 2021. This is because the repair in April 2020 appears to have resolved matters for six months and met the aims of the repairs policy.
Between December 2019 and April 2020, this Service has identified that a compensation amount was reasonable for the missed appointment, the consequent slight delay in inspection outside the policy target, and the communication issues which the resident explained caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience, and the landlord offered £300 which reasonably covered these.
From November 2020 to March 2021, the landlord took appropriate steps to carry out initial works and then inspect, complete and monitor further works in a four month timeframe that was not overly unreasonable. Whilst it is recognised it may have been distressing to experience problems with water ingress over this four month period, particularly during the pandemic, it is not uncommon for such issues to require repeat inspections and multiple attempts before a fully effective solution is found. A compensation amount for delays may not however be unreasonable, and by 7 January 2021 it is noted the landlord appeared to have increased its compensation offer to £350.
After the resident contacted about compensation and an insurance claim between February 2021 and May 2021, the landlord has clearly attempted to resolve the resident’s complaint by appropriately liaising with the local authority’s insurance team, and by increasing its offer from £350 to £800. In addition to this, it has detailed actions it has taken and assisted in supply of dehumidifiers, which may normally be a leaseholder responsibility.
In its Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy provided by the landlord falls in the highest range, where there has been maladministration and a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. In this case, it is noted that some aspects of this may not be as directly applicable to the resident as he sublet the property.
Accordingly, the financial remedy of £800 offered by the landlord is in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress for the service issues and delays identified.
The above demonstrates the landlord appropriately carried out investigations of the complaint, acknowledged most service failings and took action within the timeframes of the complaint to complete and monitor repairs. The landlord was then resolution focused and sought to make redress to the resident in recognition of delays, distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord’s responses evidences it appropriately put things right, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made reasonable redress for the service failures identified in its response to the resident’s water ingress and mould reports.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint, acknowledged service issues and took action within the timeframes of the complaint to complete and monitor repairs in April 2020 and March 2021.
The landlord was resolution focused and sought to make redress to the resident in recognition of delays, distress and inconvenience, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress for the service issues and delays identified.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer the compensation of £800.
The landlord to ensure it responds to complaints in line with its repairs policy and complaints policy, and avoids treatment of issues as continuous complaints, unless this is line with policy or appears necessary/reasonable.
The landlord to ensure it maintains and supplies accurate records in regards to repairs and complaint handling.