Clarion Housing Association Limited (202308353)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308353

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 May 2025

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Temporary move.
3. Request for compensation.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 3-bedroom property with her 5 children.
On 11 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the ceiling in her son’s bedroom was sagging due to a leak. On 13 April 2023, the landlord sent an operative to inspect the property. The operative found birds nesting in the roof and identified a hole that was allowing water to enter the loft space and leak through the ceiling. The operative told the resident that no work could be carried out until the birds had left and that they suspected the presence of asbestos in the ceiling.
On 15 April 2023, the landlord arranged for an asbestos survey of the property. The survey identified asbestos in the ceiling of the son’s bedroom, but it was assessed as low risk for fibre release if disturbed.
On 24 April 2023, the resident reported that the ceiling in her son’s bedroom had collapsed. An operative attended the same day to make the area safe.
On 13 May 2023, the landlord arranged a temporary hotel stay for the resident and 1 of her sons. She returned home on 15 May 2023.
On 2 June 2023, the resident and her son moved back into a hotel. She agreed with the landlord that her other 4 sons would stay with a family member while the landlord completed roof repairs.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 June 2023, which included a chronology of events since reporting the leak. She expressed concern about the landlord’s delays in completing roof repairs and identifying the presence of asbestos. She raised dissatisfaction about having to wait until the birds vacated the roof before works could begin, which she had been told might take several months. The resident also said the temporary accommodation arrangements did not meet the needs of all her children. While some were staying with a family member, she said this was not sustainable as a longer-term solution.
The resident’s complaint also said that she was incurring additional travel and food costs, which she wanted the landlord to reimburse. She requested compensation for the damage to her belongings caused by the ceiling collapse and a rent refund due to the impact of her family being separated.
Between 2 August and 11 August 2023, the landlord completed repairs to the roof and replastered the affected bedroom ceiling. The resident returned home on 16 August 2023.
On 17 August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she had lost around £3000 worth of her children’s belongings. She said this was because the landlord had not offered to store the items, and they were damaged when the ceiling collapsed and became contaminated with asbestos. She reported damage to the structure of the property, carpets, and bedding. The resident asked to be reimbursed for loss of earnings and stress, and said she had a GP letter in support.
The resident also requested reimbursement for spoiled food in her fridge-freezer (which she said was caused by her electricity meter running out while she was away), and for the electricity bills in the property she still had to pay while staying in the hotel. She said the period of her temporary move had a significant emotional and mental impact on her and her family. She also submitted car mileage receipts for reimbursement.
On 23 August 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was no electricity supply upstairs. On 25 August 2023, the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend and restore power to the affected areas in the property.
On 6 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she had not received a response to her formal complaint. We then asked the landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained this was due to a high volume of customer contact. It said it had no record of an earlier complaint being submitted but apologised for overlooking the resident’s later email about damaged belongings. It said it did not offer storage for the resident’s belongings initially because it was able to work around them and later found the room to be empty when it returned to carry out repairs. The landlord advised the resident to raise this matter directly with its insurance team and to submit a liability claim.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also said it was required to wait for the birds to vacate the roof before completing the roof repairs, in line with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and this was the reason for the delay. It said there was no service level agreement for temporary moves (decants), as timescales depended on the progress of works. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s hotel stay included breakfast and dinner and that it had reimbursed £542.33 for her car mileage costs. It declined to offer a rent refund and said this was because the resident was still being housed during the decant.
The landlord also said it had provided the resident with £200 in decoration vouchers, a decoration pack for the bedroom and bathroom, and a new carpet for the bedroom. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered the resident £250 compensation for poor communication, delays to the roof repairs, and for the inconvenience caused. It also offered £50 for the failure to investigate the complaints she had raised previously.
On 19 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and repeated her concerns about not being provided with storage for her belongings and reimbursement for unused electricity. She said the landlord had agreed to reimburse 45p per mile for fuel and wear and tear on her car but had only refunded fuel costs. She also said the roof repairs could have been completed sooner, as she had told the landlord the birds had left, but no action was taken.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 November 2023. It said it did not reimburse for wear and tear to vehicles, as this was not quantifiable, and it did not refund energy bills because contracts were held between residents and their energy providers. The landlord explained that it would only refund energy use if additional costs were incurred, such as the use of temporary electric heating during repair works. It acknowledged a delay in reinstating the upstairs lights, which it attributed to poor communication between operatives. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint and £50 for the delay in reinstating the lighting.
On 27 July 2024, the landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s decant and accepted that it had failed to provide adequate information about claimable costs. It offered the resident a further £150 compensation and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the landlord’s delays in completing the roof repairs and its handling of the decant caused her stress and loss of earnings. She said that she was signed off work and given a GP note in support. The resident’s chronology submitted to the landlord also stated that its operative did not take steps to prevent dust from spreading while carrying out works. She told us she was diagnosed with asthma shortly after that incident.
We acknowledge the resident’s comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for her and her family. However, claims of personal injury, including harm to health, fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit. These are matters for a landlord’s public liability insurer or the courts, where medical evidence and allegations of negligence could be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, caused her harm. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord, and how it responded to the concerns about the resident’s health.
We also recommend that the landlord contact the resident to request an update on any health conditions or vulnerabilities in the household, so that (with her consent) it can update its records accordingly.

Legal policy and framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of its properties in repair.
The ‘Responsibility for repairs’ section on the landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to:
1. Internal ceilings and plaster
2. Internal light fittings
3. The roof, including keeping it watertight
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs into 2 main types:
1. Emergency – issues that pose an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be attended and made safe within 24 hours
2. Non-emergency – issues that do not require urgent attention. These should be completed within 28 working days
Under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.
The landlord’s decant policy says a move may be needed if a resident’s home is unsafe, uninhabitable, or the scope of works makes it impractical for the resident to remain in their home.
If an unplanned event, such as a flood or major leak, requires immediate decant, the landlord may arrange a hotel or agree for residents to stay with family or friends. If so, it may pay £30 per day per household for up to 4 weeks, plus reasonable travel costs if not in the local area. After 4 weeks, the rate drops to £15 per day.
Hotel stays should not last more than 4 weeks and will include breakfast. The landlord my also offer discretionary disturbance payments for removal and storage of belongings, and £15 per adult and £10 per child per day if no cooking facilities are available.
At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy. This was because of a cyber incident affecting its systems. The policy stated that the landlord would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial report of a leak by arranging an inspection the next day. This response was in line with its emergency repairs policy. However, the operative who attended did not carry out any immediate works and explained that repairs could not proceed until birds nesting in the roof had vacated. It was reasonable for the landlord to delay repairs due to the birds, in line with the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
However, in the absence of a resolution at the time, the landlord should have followed up in writing to explain the outcome of the visit, what steps it would take next, and how it would monitor the situation. There is no evidence it did this.
The landlord also missed opportunities to reduce the risk of further damage and disruption, such as advising the resident not to use the affected room or arranging temporary internal works. This lack of clear communication and precautionary action likely left the resident uncertain about how to protect her home and family, contributing to her frustration and leaving the property exposed to further deterioration.
2 weeks after the initial inspection, the ceiling collapsed. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the same day to make the room safe, in line with its emergency repairs policy. However, the resident later told the landlord the ceiling had been left open, allowing further water damage, and when she tried to notify the landlord at the time she could not get through. While the landlord’s records do not reflect the calls the resident made, its actions support her account: it arranged an emergency decant (temporary move) 2 weeks later on 13 May 2023, for 2 nights, and did not board up the ceiling until 16 May 2023.
This indicates the landlord failed to manage the ongoing risk effectively after the ceiling collapse. It did not carry out follow-up works in a timely way or provide clear communication to reassure the resident. As a result, the leak continued to worsen, and the property deteriorated to the point it was no longer safe to remain in. The resident was left to deal with an uncontained leak for several weeks in increasingly unsuitable conditions.
The evidence shows that by 1 June 2023, the hole in the roof remained unrepaired and the resident continued to raise concerns about the worsening ceiling damage. The landlord maintained that it could not carry out repairs while the birds were still nesting. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this view to ensure compliance with its environmental obligations, but by this stage the leak had been ongoing for 7 weeks.
There is no evidence the landlord reviewed the situation or reassessed the risks in light of the continued disruption. The property was a 3-bedroom home occupied by the resident and her 5 children, and the prolonged loss of a bedroom would have significantly impacted the household. While the landlord could not prevent the birds nesting, it remained responsible for supporting the resident and managing the situation proactively. In this regard, its approach fell short.
The landlord completed repairs to the roof on 2 August 2023 – 16 weeks after the resident first reported a leak. The evidence shows that on 2 occasions in June and July 2023, she told the landlord that the birds had vacated the roof. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in response to these updates. While it may have needed to verify the situation before proceeding, the landlord should have arranged an inspection or followed up to confirm whether works could now go ahead. The failure to do so was a missed opportunity to review progress and may have prolonged the delay unnecessarily. This reflects poor coordination and a lack of urgency once the reported barrier had potentially been resolved, likely adding to the resident’s frustration at an already disruptive time.
The resident’s complaint said that the landlord should have identified the presence of asbestos in the property earlier. However, its records show it acted promptly once its operative noted potential asbestos in the ceiling. It commissioned an asbestos survey to confirm whether asbestos was present and whether any action was needed. This was an appropriate response. The survey found no recommendation for removal and assessed the risk of harm as low, even if disturbed.
However, while the landlord’s actions were reasonable, it should have communicated the outcome of the survey to the resident in writing. Doing so would have helped manage any concerns she had about asbestos. It would have also provided her reassurance that the property remained safe, as the presence of asbestos in a domestic property does not in itself indicate disrepair, if the asbestos is undisturbed.
After completing the roof repairs, the landlord offered the resident £200 worth of decoration vouchers, a decoration pack for her son’s bedroom and the bathroom and arranged for a new carpet to be fitted in the bedroom. These restorative actions were appropriate steps to return the property to a suitable standard and put right the physical impact of the leak. The landlord would not usually be responsible for decoration and fitting carpets in a property, but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer these items on this occasion.
The landlord also apologised for the delay in completing the roof repairs, for its poor communication throughout, and for the time taken to reinstate the resident’s upstairs lighting once the leak had been resolved. Where a landlord accepts failings, our role is to assess whether the redress was fair and resolved the complaint appropriately. This includes considering whether the offer aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord offered the resident a total of £300 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. In assessing whether this offer was reasonable, we have first considered the 7-week period between the resident’s initial report of a leak in April 2023 and the start of her decant in June 2023. During this time, the landlord failed to monitor the situation actively, take steps to mitigate the leak, or provide clear communication and direction. After this period, it also missed opportunities to review the reported changes in circumstances and potentially progress the roof repair sooner.
Although it was right for the landlord to restore the property and acknowledge fault through an offer of redress, the compensation does not fully reflect the prolonged disruption and distress the resident experienced as a result of the failings identified in this section of the report. As such, the landlord’s offer of redress fell short of being fair and putting things right for the resident.
Considering these factors, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. The landlord must pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section of the report. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £300, which may be deducted from the total if already paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move

The resident was temporarily decanted on 2 occasions while roof repairs were pending. The first move in May 2023 was for 2 nights and the landlord’s records show it attempted to contact the resident in the days beforehand to make arrangements but was unable to reach her. When contact was made, it was agreed that the resident and 1 of her sons would stay in a hotel, while her other children stayed with a family member. This arrangement was consistent with the landlord’s decant policy.
However, the landlord should have followed up its agreement with the resident in writing. A written agreement was particularly important in this case to confirm who the move covered, for how long, and what support would be provided – particularly given the size of the household. The absence of this was later demonstrated when the resident contacted the landlord to say she was disgusted with how the decant had been handled and that her children had been left sleeping on a sofa. The landlord’s notes state it was confused by this, as it believed the arrangement had been agreed. This misunderstanding could likely have been avoided had the terms been confirmed in writing at the time.
The resident was decanted for a second time on 2 June 2023. On this occasion, the evidence shows the landlord completed a decant needs assessment form before confirming arrangements, which was good practice. It ensured the resident’s circumstances were recorded and acknowledged. The arrangements mirrored the earlier decant: the resident and 1 son would stay in a hotel, while the rest of the children stayed with a family member. However, the landlord’s records show that on the day the decant began, it informed the resident that works to the roof could not begin until July 2023. This meant it already knew the temporary move would exceed 4 weeks. In these circumstances, it should have explored more appropriate alternatives, such as a vacant property, a short term let, a family hotel room, or 2 adjoining rooms.
While we recognise that the size of the household may have made these options difficult to source, the landlord should still have attempted to identify a solution with the least disruption. Doing so – and explaining its decisions – would have demonstrated a resident-focused approach.
On 19 June 2023, 2 weeks into the decant, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the arrangements were not suitable as her children were staying in an overcrowded 2-bedroom property with a relative. The landlord did not respond to this concern. This was a missed opportunity to review the household’s needs and consider whether more appropriate support could be offered. Failing to act on this feedback meant the resident and her family were left in unsuitable circumstances for an extended period, likely increasing the stress and disruption they experienced overall.
During the decant, the resident raised concerns about the cost and quality of meals, stating that the hotel options were not healthy enough. The landlord explained that the booking included breakfast and dinner and that the meal vouchers issued were a contribution towards meals and not intended to cover meal costs in full. This was in line with its decant policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect that the resident would continue to spend some money on food, as she would have done under normal circumstances. The landlord’s role is to minimise disruption and keep residents in a comparable position to where they would have been, not to remove all cost and inconvenience entirely.
The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord did not reimburse her for wear and tear on her car during the decant. The evidence shows the landlord refunded her mileage costs in line with its decant policy, based on the receipts she submitted. However, it rejected her request for reimbursement for wear and tear. The landlord’s decant policy does not include provision for these costs, and there is no evidence to show this had been agreed separately. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, as an impartial service, we must base findings on the available evidence. In the absence of any evidence of an agreement or policy obligation to cover these costs, we are satisfied the landlord’s response was reasonable in this regard.
The landlord’s communication throughout the decant was poor. There is no evidence it provided regular updates or contacted the resident to inform her of any extensions to the temporary move – these discussions were initiated by the resident. After the roof repairs were completed, the evidence shows she chased the landlord on 3 separate occasions to find out when she could return home, highlighting that she had not heard from the surveyor managing the works in months. This was inappropriate.
Communication that only occurs in response to resident enquiries, demonstrates a reactive, rather than proactive approach, and indicates inadequate responsiveness to residents’ needs. In this case, the resident was left uncertain about when she could return home and had to pursue updates herself, likely adding to the stress and disruptions already caused by the decant.
The resident told the landlord that food in her fridge-freezer had spoiled during the decant because the electricity had run out while she was away. She also asked the landlord to reimburse her for the electricity that continued to run in the property during this time. The landlord explained that it only refunded electricity costs where additional usage had incurred. This position was reasonable and in line with common practice. However, it did not directly address the issue of the spoiled food, which was a missed opportunity to explain how such situations are managed or whether any redress would be considered.
While residents are generally responsible for managing their utility supply while away from home, this case highlights an area where clearer guidance would have helped avoid confusion. The landlord’s decant arrangements should have included information about whether the resident was expected to visit the property at regular intervals or how essential appliances like fridges would be managed.
We recommend that the landlord review its decant policy and consider including clear guidance on how appliances will be monitored during the decant period – particularly where a property is left unoccupied.
In July 2024, the landlord sent a further response to the resident acknowledging it had not provided adequate information about the decant process and offered £150 compensation. This was a positive step that showed the landlord had recognised some of its failings and was willing to offer redress. However, the offer came 8 months after the complaints process had concluded. This delay reduced the value of the redress and meant the resident waited an unreasonably long time for the landlord to accept responsibility and act on the issues it had identified.
Finally, the landlord’s records do not show that it paid the resident the family allowances set out in its decant policy for the children who stayed with a relative. During the 2-day decant between 13 May and 15 May 2023, the landlord should have paid the resident £60 to reflect the £30 daily allowance per household. Between 2 June and 30 June 2023, it should have paid the resident £840 for 28 days at the same daily rate. From 1 July and 16 August 2023, it should have paid the resident £705 to reflect the reduced £15 daily rate over a further 47 days.
This totals £1605 that the landlord did not provide, and we have found no evidence of any agreement that would exempt the landlord from paying this allowance, as set out in its own decant policy. This shortfall indicates that the landlord did not fully consider the impact of the decant on the wider household, which represents a significant service failing.
In light of the cumulative failings outlined above, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move.
The resident has asked the landlord for a rent refund covering the decant period. However, by providing hotel accommodation and agreeing that the children could stay with a family member, the landlord met its core duty to offer a safe and habitable alternative while works took place. It also reimbursed relevant out-of-pocket expenses. The resident’s occupancy agreement remained in effect during this period, meaning rent continued to be payable. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer a rent refund, and we will not make an order for one.
However, to fully justify its decision not to issue a rent refund, the landlord must meet all obligations under its decant policy – including payment of the family allowance. As it did not pay this, the landlord must now pay the resident £1605 to reflect the unpaid allowance and offset the disruptions of the household being split across 2 locations.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must also pay the resident the £150 compensation it already offered for the distress and inconvenienced caused by its poor handling of her decant. This offer is appropriate to acknowledge the landlord’s failure to explore suitable alternative housing options, review whether the existing arrangements remained appropriate, and communicate effectively throughout the process. This amount aligns with what we would have ordered it to pay if it had not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings

In her stage 1 complaint, the resident asked the landlord for compensation for damage caused to her belongings by the roof leak. She later explained in August 2023, that the ceiling collapse and exposure to asbestos had destroyed items valued at around £3000. The landlord responded by directing the resident to its insurance team and provided the relevant contact details. This was an appropriate course of action, in line with standard practice for assessing claims of this nature. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process.
While the resident told us she was advised to claim through her own contents insurance instead, we have seen correspondence from the landlord in August 2023 and again in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses in September and November 2023, that it signposted her to its own liability insurance process. The resident may wish to pursue this route if she would like this aspect of her complaint to be considered by the landlord further.
The resident also said the landlord failed to offer storage for her belongings, which she believed could have prevented further damage. In response, the landlord said the bedroom had already been cleared, so it did not consider storage necessary. While we cannot verify the condition of the room at the time, the resident’s claim about damaged belongings suggests there were still items present. As this links closely to her wider concerns about property damage, it would be appropriate for the resident to raise this aspect as part of any further insurance claim. The landlord should then ensure any relevant evidence or clarification it holds is made available to support that process.
Taking into account the evidence and the landlord’s referral to its insurance process, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 88 working days later – significantly outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This response was only prompted by our intervention. The landlord initially said it had no record of receiving the resident’s complaint before our involvement. However, its own records show it received the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2023 and sent an acknowledgment a few days later. The resident also chased for a response to her complaint on 3 and 26 July 2023 but received no response. This demonstrated that the landlord failed to keep accurate records of its complaint handling and missed opportunities to respond to the complaint sooner.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 September 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 59 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales. This continued delay, along with the earlier failures to acknowledge and response promptly, reflected a pattern of poor complaint handling and lack of oversight.
We appreciate that a cyber incident can disrupt an organisation’s operations, and it is reasonable for an organisation to pause its usual processes while it implements plans to manage the impact. However, the length of time it took the landlord to respond at both stages of the complaints process was unacceptable. The lack of timely updates and record-keeping likely caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident, particularly given the wider context of her complaint.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £100 compensation for the delays in its complaint handling. While this was a reasonable attempt to acknowledge the inconvenience caused, it did not go far enough to reflect the cumulative impact of the delays. This included the resident’s repeated follow-ups, her need to escalate the matter to this service for support, the lack of timely updates, and prolonged period she waited for her complaints to be addressed. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100, which may be deducted from the total if already paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s temporary move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £2355 in compensation, set out as follows:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor handling of her reports of a leak
  2. £1605 for the unpaid family allowance under its decant policy
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenienced caused by its poor handling of the decant
  4. £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint
These amounts replace any compensation previously offered by the landlord, which can be deducted from the total award if already paid.
The landlord must ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to request an update on any health conditions or vulnerabilities in the household, so (with her consent) it can update its records accordingly.
We recommend the landlord review its decant policy and consider including clear guidance on how appliances will be monitored during the decant period – particularly where a property is left unoccupied. This should include in what circumstances residents are permitted to return to the property periodically during a decant.