Westminster City Council (202223813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223813

Westminster City Council

9 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould;
2. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and his tenancy began on 9 December 2019. The information seen suggests he occupies the property with close family members including a sibling and their young child. The property is a 3 bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is the resident’s local authority. The resident has cerebral palsy and experiences some related mobility issues.
The landlord provided a copy of its tenant handbook. It shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good working order. This includes drains, gutters and outside pipes. Residents are responsible for decorating their homes. This includes making good any damage incurred during flooding caused by another resident. The handbook also shows residents should arrange their own contents insurance.
The handbook confirms the landlord will respond to emergency repairs, which pose an immediate risk to health and safety, within 2-4 hours to make the situation safe. The landlord will respond to urgent repairs, such as plumbing works and blockages, within 24 hours. The handbook does not give a timescale for non-urgent repairs. Residents are obliged to facilitate access for repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy can be found on its website. It shows the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. Typically, the landlord will not investigate complaints about issues that occurred more than 12 months ago.

Summary of events

The property’s repair history shows the resident reported a leak from above in late May 2021. The landlord’s related complaint correspondence shows the property’s kitchen, bathroom and hallway were affected. It also shows the resident was unhappy with the number of leaks into the property. The landlord said the recent leak was caused by a broken bath waste pipe in the flat above. It also said subsequent works were required to unblock the neighbour’s bath.
The repair history shows there were no further leaks until 22 March 2022. At this point, the resident reported a leak from the flat above. Corresponding repair records said water was leaking into a cupboard that housed the property’s consumer unit. In addition, it had also leaked into a light switch in the hallway. The repair records suggest the electrics were made safe within hours.
The next day, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said he noticed the leak after slipping in pooling water the previous evening. Further, he knocked for the neighbour with a view to having them turn off their taps. However, the neighbour refused to answer the door. The resident also said this was the eleventh flooding incident in the last 2 years. His main points were:
1. Other family members had to leave the property because the wet electrics were dangerous. The resident’s father received an electric shock while wiping down a wall.
2. The landlord’s electrician advised the water would have triggered a safety shut off in a modern consumer unit.
3. The landlord’s plumber was unable to access the neighbour’s property.
4. The neighbour’s antisocial behaviour was unacceptable. The resident was “constantly cleaning up and repairing damage”. It was a matter of time until someone was seriously injured.
5. The resident made a similar complaint around May 2021. Given the number of incidents, the landlord should take serious measures against the neighbour.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 March 2022. It said the neighbour’s actions were beyond the scope of its investigation. However, the landlord would consider its own handling and respond by 8 April 2022. On the same day, the landlord’s internal correspondence said recent repair notes indicated there was a drainage issue. The landlord asked its repairs team to investigate whether the incident was linked to a previous complaint response issued in August 2021.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord’s electrical contractor repaired the hallway light switch. Corresponding records show a bathroom light was also repaired. No information was seen to suggest any works were completed to the property’s consumer unit.
A screen shot shows the landlord visited the block around 7 April 2022. Corresponding notes said there was no sign of a leak in a nearby flat on the third floor. However, there was a leak through a light in the neighbour’s home and the hallway was “very wet throughout”. It said a downpipe might be the source of the leak. In addition, the property “was always having leaks and the walls were wet”. The parties’ subsequent correspondence suggests the notes were made by the landlord’s surveyor.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 8 April 2022. This was in line with the timescale in its complaint acknowledgement. The response addressed the disturbance and damage caused by leaks from the flat above. It said the landlord had considered events following its stage 2 response in August 2021. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. No compensation was awarded. The main points were:
1. In relation to the recent incident, the landlord’s electrician and plumber had attended within the landlord’s applicable timescales. Works were completed to make the property safe.
2. Though it understood the resident’s frustration, the landlord’s operatives were unable to force access unless there was an emergency. The landlord’s attending operatives did not feel the property was at risk of structural damage.
3. Arrangements were made to return the following day. At this point, operatives found a blockage linked to the neighbour’s bath. The blockage was cleared the same day to prevent back-surging.
4. A works order had been raised to survey the neighbour’s pipework using CCTV. Any additional blockages would be addressed accordingly. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 6 April 2022 to inspect the damage.
5. The landlord would assess whether the property needed a replacement consumer unit. Decoration works had been authorised and the resident could contact a named member of the landlord’s staff for an update.
6. Whilst there were no delays, the complaint was partially upheld on the basis “repeat damages had been caused by the leak”. The neighbour had been reminded about the importance of monitoring and reporting repairs promptly.
The landlord’s timeline suggests the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 21 April 2022. His escalation request said he disagreed with much of the landlord’s assessment and reasoning. For example, he said the landlord’s surveyor had given many reasons for the multiple floods and “each one (was) more ridiculous than the last”. Further, the landlord’s complaint response had contradicted the surveyor’s rationale. The resident said the landlord should award compensation. Other key points were:
1. The neighbour should have shut off their bath taps when they noticed the water rising. They were either “mentally ill” or their actions were deliberate. Alternatively, the landlord’s previous repairs and assessments were substandard. In any case, the family had experienced “complete misery for two and a half years”.
2. The resident’s father missed 2 days of work clearing the damage. Towels were thrown away for “the third time…in just over a year”, and the carpet needed professional cleaning.
3. The resident had to buy a new dehumidifier. Over the years, the family had spent “a fortune” on redecorating and replacing items. The resident felt their lost earnings amounted to thousands of pounds.
4. The resident was still waiting for the landlord’s repairs team to arrange an appointment to address the damage. He was previously advised this would occur within 24 hours. The resident had been unable to contact the landlord’s local representative.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord forwarded the resident’s escalation request internally. The information seen suggests it issued a stage 2 acknowledgement around the same time. The acknowledgment apologised for a delay, thanked the resident for his escalation emails on 21 and 23 April 2022, and referenced an escalation form on 29 April 2022. This suggests the resident made several attempts to escalate his complaint. The acknowledgement said the landlord would respond by 10 June 2022.
The landlord inspected the property on 18 May 2022. Its inspection report shows various works were needed to the bathroom, hallway and kitchen ceiling. Further, the required works included wallpaper removal, mould washing and repainting. Repair records show the landlord raised 3 related repair orders the following day.
A further inspection took place on 10 June 2022. The inspection report shows some of the repairs identified during the previous inspection had been completed. Specifically, it shows works were undertaken to the hallway, living room ceiling and kitchen ceiling. In addition, they included mould treatment and stain blocking works. This was around 11 weeks after the leak.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 15 June 2022. This was around 8 weeks after the resident’s initial escalation request. The landlord acknowledged its response was delayed. It awarded the resident £20 in related compensation. The resident’s core complaint was partially upheld. This was on the basis the landlord failed to arrange repairs to the property’s decorations as promised at stage 1. The main points were:
1. The landlord reiterated the stage 1 complaint was partially upheld because the resident experienced repeat damage from leaks. It assured the resident it had spoken to the neighbour about the importance of reporting repairs.
2. Previous leaks were caused by different issues. The landlord could not have predicted them, or acted in advance to prevent them occurring. In addition, it could only consider issues reported or raised within the last 12 months.
3. The most recent leak was caused by a blockage on the block’s main (soil) stack. The landlord did not hold a record of its surveyor’s discussion with the resident. In addition, the surveyor had since left the landlord’s service.
4. The neighbour was reminded they were obliged to provide access for the landlord. Still, the landlord found no evidence to support the resident’s assertion the damage was intentional. Nor was there any evidence of failings related to the design or condition of the block’s plumbing.
5. The landlord was sorry the family’s personal belongings were damaged. Residents were advised to arrange their own contents insurance. If the resident felt the damage arose from the landlord’s negligence, he could contact the landlord’s insurer using the details provided.
6. The landlord could supply dehumidifiers on a temporary basis. However, neither the landlord’s surveyor, or its contractors had reported a dehumidifier was required following the leak.
7. The landlord was sorry the repairs were delayed. This was an oversight on its part. It was aware works were specified during an inspection on “20 May 2022”. However, its surveyor had left the landlord’s service without passing the details to a colleague.
8. The landlord’s local representative was currently away from work. A colleague was covering their duties. They could be contacted using the details provided.
Internal correspondence on 29 June 2022 shows a local MP had contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. During the correspondence, the landlord said there were outstanding repairs to the property. Further, the works were raised on 19 May 2022 and they should have been completed within 28 days. In addition, two orders for mould treatment works had been cancelled. From the information seen, the cancellation reason was unclear.
The landlord’s repairs team replied the same day. It said there was a clash between separate jobs raised for the bathroom. Further, to avoid potential damage, the resident had agreed to delay decoration works until a replacement bath had been installed. The landlord said it could bring the decoration works forward or chase the replacement bath.
The landlord inspected the property on 8 September 2022. The inspection confirms mould washing works were completed to various surfaces in the bathroom, including the walls, ceiling and tiles. It also shows mould resistant paint was applied. This was around 24 weeks after the leak. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
The resident completed the Ombudsman’s complaint form in early January 2023. In addition to reiterating his previous concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour and the number of flood incidents, the resident said the whole property smelled strongly of damp. Further, walls were wet and there was mould in every room. He attributed the situation to continuous flooding incidents over the years. He said the smell was “humiliating” and the family’s health was suffering. His other new points were:
1. The landlord should properly assess the property and repair all its issues. To date, it had taken no firm action against the neighbour.
2. “After many months of waiting”, the landlord completed various repair works. However, bathroom works completed on 7 July 2022 caused additional problems because the replacement bath was too small.
3. Ultimately, the resident raised another complaint because the family were left without a functioning bath for over 50 days. The landlord eventually awarded him £145 in related compensation.
4. In contrast to this figure, the £20 compensation the landlord awarded in relation to the March 2022 flood was “totally unacceptable”.
The landlord provided a copy of the resident’s mould and condensation request (a questionnaire). It said his request was created on 19 January 2023. The resident’s request said mould issues in the property had got significantly worse over the last few months. Further, damp and mould was visible on walls and ceilings in the living room, bedroom and toilet. He also said the family had “all (experienced) bad chests and coughs”.
The landlord inspected the property on 7 February 2023. The inspection report shows mould washing and making good works were required to various rooms. The accompanying images suggest there was moderate mould growth in various locations around the property.
A subsequent inspection occurred on 28 February 2023. The report shows works were completed to the bathroom and toilet, including stain blocking and the application of mould resistant paint. It said the resident refused works to the bedroom and living room. No accompanying rationale was recorded. There was another gap in the evidence at this point.
During internal correspondence on 26 July 2023 the landlord said it had spoken to the resident about the leak. It also said he reported there had been no recent leaks from above. However, recent drain rodding works had ruptured a pipe causing a leak in the electrical cupboard. In addition, he was waiting to hear from the landlord about the related repairs.
In internal correspondence on 2 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor relayed their findings from a visit to the neighbour’s home. They said the visit was prompted by a complaint about persistent leaks into the flat below. Further, there were issues with the neighbour’s kitchen and bathroom. They said the neighbour had attempted to complete their own repairs but the workmanship was poor. The surveyor recommended a follow up visit by the landlord.
On 5 September 2023 the landlord issued a further response at stage 2. This was around 15 months after its previous response. It said the landlord had decided to complete a further review of the complaint. The response addressed: contractor access issues and intentional damage, two months of delays in arranging decoration works, and compensation. The landlord reiterated its previous comments around insurance. The response included a link to raise an insurance claim against the landlord. The other main points were:
1. The landlord’s complaints process was time-limited. Unless there was evidence of a direct connection with previous issues, the landlord could only consider concerns raised in the last 12 months.
2. The landlord understood the resident’s frustration. However, after examining previous leaks, there was no evidence the most recent leak was related. As a result, previous leaks were beyond the scope of the landlord’s review.
3. There was no evidence of deliberate damage by the neighbour, who was reminded of their tenancy obligations. Within days, the landlord’s senior surveyor would inspect the neighbour’s home to ensure any required repairs were addressed. They would also consider whether any preventative works were needed.
4. The landlord was sorry there was a two month delay in arranging redecoration works following the leak. It understood the importance of timely action and efficient coordination to mitigate disruption.
5. The landlord had decided to revise its previous offer of £20 in compensation. It was now offering a total of £270 in compensation comprising: £250 to reflect the delay for decoration works and preventative action in addition to the £20 previously awarded for the complaint handling delay.
The landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman around this point. Its evidence file included screen shots with the resident’s tenancy information and personal details. The screen shots show the resident’s disability was not reflected in the landlord’s primary records.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 25 January 2024. He said there was another leak in December 2023, which was the subject of an ongoing complaint with the landlord. He felt it related to an issue on the third floor of the block. He also said there was damp and mould in the property’s hallway. It was understood he felt it was only a matter of time before the family experienced further leaks. Other key points were:
1. Contrary to the information in the landlord’s recent review, the resident was unaware of any preventative/proofing works undertaken to mitigate the impact of leaks.
2. In relation to the mould works declined in February 2022, the landlord had not given the family sufficient time to move their belongings to facilitate the repairs.
3. Its treatment works would also have damaged the family’s decorations. They were not prepared to live with a “patchwork” of mismatched decorations. The landlord should redecorate in full following repairs.
4. The resident was reluctant to undertake any further decorating given the risk of leaks. He felt the landlord should take responsibility. Further, there must be more it could do to prevent damage from leaks.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident and his family. The landlord accepted the property has been impacted by a number of leaks over the years. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any lost earnings or health impacts. The resident can seek legal advice if he wants to pursue these matters.
The landlord’s September 2023 review, including its additional compensation award, cannot fairly be considered part of its internal complaints procedure (ICP). While the additional compensation award was welcome, it postdated the landlord’s final response by around 15 months. It also appears to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. Overall, this delay is evidence of complaint handling failures. Nevertheless, the review was a useful benchmark. It showed the landlord’s recent thinking in relation to the leaks.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould

The landlord has said it considered events from August 2021 because the leaks that occurred before this date were unrelated. It also said the leaks were unpredictable, so there was nothing it could have done in advance to prevent them. We thought carefully about the scope of the landlord’s investigation. The information seen suggests the landlord’s position is technically correct. It is accepted the resident may feel differently based on his experience of the leaks. However, the timeline suggests there were similarities between the May 2021 and March 2022 incidents. For example, the landlord said they were both linked to the neighbour’s bath. Further, unblocking works were required on each occasion.
In April 2022, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the basis of repeat damage to the property. The timeline shows it was aware the property was disproportionately impacted by leaks. For example, around the same time, the landlord’s surveyor said the property was “always having leaks”. During its September 2023 review, the landlord said its senior surveyor would consider whether preventative/proofing works were needed to mitigate the risk of leaks. The resident has said another leak occurred since the landlord made this commitment.
The above confirms it was a good idea to have a senior surveyor explore the possibility of leak mitigation works. However, no information was seen to suggest the landlord followed up on its commitment. This was inappropriate given the circumstances. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have been more proactive at an earlier stage of the timeline. For example, its surveyor and stage 1 complaint handler were both aware of repeated leaks around April 2022. Still, no information was seen to suggest either considered preventative options at this point. Overall, the above points to an inappropriate lack of resolution focus on the landlord’s part.
The evidence also suggests the landlord’s reactive approach was a contributory factor in subsequent damage to the property and the family’s decorations. For example, the timeline shows the May 2021 and March 2022 incidents broadly impacted the same rooms. In his recent update to the Ombudsman, the resident said the family were reluctant to spend on decorations given additional leaks are likely. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused him distress over a prolonged period from around April 2021. For example, the possibility of further leaks was likely a source of anxiety for the resident.
In relation to the other aspects of the landlord’s response, the timeline shows it took around 5 months for the landlord to complete repairs following the leak in 2022. This was based on the period between 7 April and 7 September 2022. The Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs. This is broadly consistent with the comments in the landlord’s internal correspondence in June 2022. In contrast, the landlord eventually awarded the resident £250 for around 2 months of delays. Since the landlord failed to recognise the full duration of the delay, its compensation award was disproportionate.
As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our award will be based on combined delays of 5 months in total. This is because the landlord’s initial repairs, completed around 10 June 2022, were also delayed by about a month. This assessment did not consider subsequent issues with the landlord’s bathroom repairs (from 7 September 2022 onwards). These issues were the subject of a separate complaint and the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to make a fair assessment.
No information was seen to show the resident raised mould concerns as part of his formal complaint. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman used its inquisitorial remit to consider the landlord’s mould handling. This was on the basis we have seen sufficient information to make a fair assessment. Though his comments to the Ombudsman in early 2023 were noted, there was no evidence to show the resident reported mould to the landlord during the period between 7 September 2022 and 18 January 2023.
On that basis, the landlord’s response to his mould and condensation request on 19 January 2023 was broadly reasonable. This is because the landlord’s inspection report on 28 February 2023 shows mould treatment works had been completed around 6 weeks later. It was noted an inspection was needed before the landlord could arrange specific treatment works. As a result, 6 weeks was not an unreasonable timeframe given the circumstances.
It was noted the resident, in his January 2024 update to the Ombudsman, has said there is an ongoing damp and mould issue in the property’s hallway. From the information seen, there was no evidence to suggest this issue is linked to any failures which occurred during the above timeline. On that basis, the ongoing mould issue was beyond the scope of this assessment. The resident can either provide evidence that shows the issue is linked to our investigation, or raise a new complaint with the landlord.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord’s inappropriate lack of resolution focus was a contributory factor in damage incurred during further leaks. Since it failed to identify the full extent of the delays the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to fulfil its commitment to explore mitigation works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Primarily, though its stage 2 response recognised there was a considerable delay in arranging the leak repairs, the landlord did not attempt to award proportionate compensation until around 15 months later. This was based on the period between 15 June 2022 and 5 September 2023. This shows an inappropriate lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint. The resident’s Ombudsman complaint form confirms he perceived the landlord’s stage 2 compensation was unfair.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the above identified delay was distressing for the resident. In addition, a lack of engagement was also noted in relation to the landlord’s further review at stage 2. For example, there was no evidence the landlord sought to question the conclusions reached (about the length of the delays) in its previous response. At this point, based on the failure to award compensation previously, the landlord would have been aware its stage 2 response was flawed. On that basis, a more thorough review was warranted.
During each complaint investigation, the landlord should seek to establish the correct overall timeline. This will increase the landlord’s chances of: calculating proportionate compensation, and resolving complaints fairly during its own ICP. In this case, the correct reference point should have been the date the repairs were completed. In its initial stage 2 response, the landlord could have reasonably offered to review its calculation on completion of the repairs. Arguably, its failure to do this is further evidence of an inappropriate lack of engagement.
In addition, the landlord failed to consider the full complaint journey during its ICP. Had it done so, the landlord would have recognised the resident incurred additional inconvenience because it failed to act on his escalation requests. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement suggests it took 3 attempts to progress the complaint. This was unfair and inappropriate. On that basis, the landlord should have awarded proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident. Its response wording shows the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its complaint handling failures.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. At various points in the timeline, it displayed an inappropriate lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint. As a result, it overlooked impacts and failed to award proportionate compensation. It is reasonable to conclude a related 15 month complaint handling delay was distressing for the resident.
It is noted the resident holds the landlord responsible for significant damage to the family’s personal belongings. This includes water damage to decorations and items such as appliances. It may help to explain that, where a resident asserts damage occurred due to a landlord’s negligence, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them towards its insurer. In this case, the timeline shows the landlord signposted the resident accordingly. In other words, there was no evidence to support a related failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline points to several record keeping issues. For example, contrary to its stage 1 response, no information was seen to show the landlord considered upgrading the property’s consumer unit following the leak. As mentioned, a similar issue was noted in relation to potential mitigation works around September 2023. Overall, the above suggests the landlord failed to follow up key issues because it did not record them or monitor its progress accordingly. This was both unfair to the resident and inappropriate.
The evidence points to a similar issue in late February 2023. At this point, the landlord’s inspection report said the resident declined mould treatment works to the bedroom and living room. However, no accompanying rationale was captured in the report. Given mould is a potential health/safety issue, the landlord’s records should capture the reason for any declined works. It is reasonable to conclude the information could help the landlord overcome objections.
Finally, the landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman shows its primary records do not reflect the resident’s disability. Given this information could guide some of the landlord’s interactions with the resident, the correct records should be readily available to the landlord’s agents. It was noted the landlord’s repair records did reference the resident’s disability. It was also noted there was no evidence the resident was treated unfairly based on the missing record.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
In summary, the timeline suggests the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping hindered its overall response to the leak. Given the above, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s inappropriate lack of resolution focus was a contributory factor in damage incurred during further leaks. Since it failed to identify the full extent of the delays the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to fulfil its commitment to explore mitigation works.
At various points in the timeline, the landlord displayed an inappropriate lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint. As a result, it overlooked impacts and failed to award proportionate compensation. It is reasonable to conclude a related 15 month complaint handling delay was distressing for the resident.
The landlord’s inappropriate record keeping hindered its overall response to the leak. For example, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to follow up key actions because it failed to record them or monitor its progress accordingly. Significant information was missing from an inspection report and there was a gap in the landlord’s primary records.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to explore solutions/mitigation options in relation to the leaks impacting the property. The landlord should consider the wider circumstances including: previous repair costs, mitigation works, moves, and support needs if applicable. It could arrange an internal meeting involving a senior surveyor, its repairs team, and complaint handling staff. In any event, the landlord should provide a written summary to the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,700 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s inappropriate lack of resolution focus.
2. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the delays completing repairs. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has previously paid from the £250 it awarded in September 2023.
3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has previously paid from the £20 it awarded at stage 2.
The landlord to ensure its primary records accurately reflect the resident’s disability. The landlord may need to contact the resident and clarify the correct details before updating its records. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord’s leadership team to review the report’s key findings for learning and improvement purposes. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a written summary of its identified improvements. The review should consider the landlord’s: inappropriate lack of resolution focus, lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint, failure to establish the correct timeline or award proportionate compensation, and inappropriate record keeping. Identified improvements should be cascaded to the landlord’s relevant staff.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.