Together Housing Association Limited (202218487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218487

Together Housing Association Limited

30 June 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 response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
2. The resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property.
3. The resident’s concerns about communications with staff members.
4. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace house and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 23 September 2019. The landlord’s records state that the resident has a mental health disability and hearing/visual impairments.
The resident has been represented by her daughter during much of the contact with the landlord and with us. For ease of reading, both the resident and her daughter are referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the resident’.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

On 7 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested an inspection of her windows, which she said were warped and were causing condensation and water ingress. She also contacted the landlord in October 2022 to request an inspection. The landlord raised an order on 31 March 2023 to replace the window seals, which it said were defective.
The resident contacted us on 29 August 2023 and said the landlord had previously advised her that the windows would be replaced in April 2023 but she had not received any further information. As a result, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 4 October 2023 and sent its stage 1 reply on 18 October 2023 in which it stated the following in relation to the windows:
1. It confirmed that all properties in the resident’s street had been included in its 2023/24 window replacement programme, however, due to budget constraints, it had deferred the programme to 2024/25.
2. The landlord had inspected the windows on 17 October 2023 and identified that the windows required repairs. A follow-up appointment had therefore been booked with the resident.
3. The landlord apologised that one of its inspectors had inaccurately advised the resident in 2022 that her windows would be replaced at that time and said it would follow this up in line with its internal processes.
4. The landlord offered compensation of £240 to recognise the time taken to address the windows and the impact on the resident.
The landlord attended the property on 20 October 2023 to measure for new glass to be fitted to all of the windows. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2023 to say she was unhappy with the stage 1 reply because she had previously been advised that the windows would be replaced.
The contractor attended on 24 November 2023 and replaced 17 glass panels in the windows, resealed the windows and replaced the handles. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 11 December 2023 in which it confirmed it had completed the repairs to the windows, which it said would sustain them until the windows were replaced. It increased its compensation to £400 in relation to the window-related issues and offered a further £100 for its complaint handling.
The landlord’s records state that the window replacements in the resident’s property was scheduled to start on 27 November 2024 and the resident advised us that the windows were replaced.

The resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 to report that a tree in a neighbouring garden was affecting the street lighting and her phone line. She said it was also making the pathway slippery. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022 and confirmed it had inspected the tree. It had found that the tree needed some reduction to clear the streetlight but said it did not yet have a date for when the work would be carried out. It advised the resident to contact her service provider if she was having any problems with her phone or internet service.
In her stage 1 complaint dated 4 October 2023, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of the overgrown tree in a neighbouring property. She said the tree was causing a loss of light and sap from the tree was making the path slippery. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply dated 18 October 2023 that its lead Arborist had recently inspected the tree and identified some minor work that was needed. However, it said that limited work could currently be done to the tree due to the time of year while the tree was shedding leaves. In its stage 2 reply dated 11 December 2023, the landlord confirmed it would look to carry out the reduction work in a few months. However, the landlord’s records show that the tree was pruned in December 2023.

The resident’s concerns about communications with staff members

As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident had advised the landlord that the Neighbourhood Officer had not responded to her enquiries. The landlord said in its stage 1 reply that the matter had been reviewed by the Neighbourhood Coordinator who accepted that some of the resident’s communications had not been responded to. The landlord confirmed that the matter had been addressed with the relevant officers. It also said that all future contact from the resident should go through its Customer Service Centre, rather than directly to officers, so that enquiries could be logged and monitored.
As part of her stage 2 complaint on 31 October 2023, the resident said she had texted the Neighbourhood Officer directly in April 2023 but did not receive a reply until September. She said that other officers had also failed to reply to her.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

In January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request a transfer to a bungalow. The resident had further conversations with the landlord about her rehousing application during May and June 2022 and these conversations involved her daughter removing her name from the resident’s rehousing application form to help the resident’s request to move to a bungalow.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she needed a management move to a bungalow due to her accessibility needs. The landlord responded in its stage 1 letter dated 18 October 2023 and said it was unable to agree a management transfer to a bungalow but the resident was registered for rehousing and had been awarded ‘silver banding’ based on her current needs. The landlord said it had also lowered the minimum age for bungalows from 55 years to allow the resident to bid for a bungalow through the choice-based lettings system.
In response to the landlord’s stage 1 reply, the resident said she had been on the waiting list for a move for over 2 years and although she had bid for properties, she had been unsuccessful. She said her current property was too big and she was unable to climb the stairs.
In its stage 2 reply dated 11 December 2023, the landlord said the following in relation to the resident’s request for rehousing:
1. The landlord said the resident had been awarded ‘silver banding’. This had been reassessed by the Lettings Manager who had confirmed it was the correct banding based on the resident’s circumstances.
2. The landlord explained that the resident’s position on the list for each property would differ based on the number of other applicants bidding for a property and their relative levels of priority.
3. The landlord said its Neighbourhood Team had confirmed that the resident did not meet the threshold for a management transfer, but she should let the team know if there are any future changes in her circumstances.
On 13 May 2024, the resident contacted us to say she was dissatisfied because she had applied for numerous bungalows but had been unsuccessful, even though she had been on the waiting list for almost 4 years. She wrote to us on 9 June 2025 to say that she needed to move urgently due to issues with her neighbours and because she was unable to manage stairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to us on 13 May 2024 and said she had been on the landlord’s waiting list for rehousing for 4 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events from 2022 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
We have received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 11 December 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint dated 31 October 2023 that she had been discriminated against. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the outside of the property and its structure, including roofs, windows and doors.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 and requested an inspection of her windows, which she said were warped and allowing water ingress. The landlord inspected the windows on 13 September 2022 and advised the resident that it could repair the windows. However, its Assets team had confirmed that the windows in the scheme were due to be replaced in 2023 as part of its window renewal programme. The landlord’s notes state that the resident was happy with this advice.
The landlord had therefore inspected the windows within a reasonable timescale and discussed with the resident whether it should carry out repairs or wait for the window replacement. The evidence shows that the landlord did not have a definite date for when the window replacements would be carried out. Therefore, as it had identified that repairs were needed to the windows, it was unreasonable that it had not carried out interim repairs while waiting for the window replacements. The landlord was responsible for ensuring the windows were in good repair and therefore was obligated to carry out any necessary repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10, 17 and 25 October 2022 about her concerns regarding the condition of the windows. She attached photos showing condensation on the windows and said the landlord had refused to replace her windows. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took further action regarding the windows nor wrote to the resident to communicate its position to the resident regarding the window replacements. This was unreasonable as the resident had contacted the landlord to raise further concerns about the windows and therefore it was incumbent on the landlord to provide clear communication about the action it intended to take in relation to the repair or renewal of the windows.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2023 and reported high levels of condensation on the windows. She said she had to sleep downstairs as the main bedroom was too damp. The landlord’s Surveyor arranged to inspect the windows on 9 April 2023 having agreed an appointment with the resident. The inspection had therefore been arranged to take place within a reasonable timescale after the resident’s contact on 31 March 2023. The Surveyor attended on 9 April 2023 but the Surveyor’s notes stated that the resident was not at home. The Surveyor said he left a card for the resident to confirm he had attended.
The resident phoned the landlord on 31 May 2023 to ask when her windows would be replaced. She said the landlord’s Surveyor had advised her on 13 September 2022 during the inspection that the windows needed replacing. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s call. The landlord’s communication regarding the renewal of the windows was unreasonable because it was now the end of May 2023 and she had been told in September 2022 that her windows were due for replacement in 2023.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply dated 18 October 2023 that due to budget constraints, the renewal of the windows in the resident’s scheme had been deferred to 2024/25. It confirmed that its Surveyor had inspected the windows on 17 October 2023 and agreed to carry out repairs in the interim while waiting for the window renewals.
It was unreasonable that the resident had to make a stage 1 complaint in order to obtain information about the timescale for renewing the windows. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the replacement of the windows was poor. The delay in arranging the repairs was also unreasonable given that the Surveyor had inspected the windows in September 2022 and identified that repairs were needed to the windows. The landlord was also aware that the window renewals had been deferred.
The landlord apologised in its stage 1 reply that the Surveyor had advised the resident in September 2022 that her windows would be replaced straightaway. It said it would address this in line with its internal processes to avoid any reoccurrence. It was appropriate that the landlord had apologised to the resident for the information provided by its Surveyor in September 2022 as the landlord accepted the information had not been accurate.
The repairs to the windows were carried out on 24 November 2023 and involved replacing 17 glass panels, resealing all of the windows and repairing or replacing handles where appropriate. Given that the glass panels had to be manufactured to size, the work was carried out within a reasonable timeframe following the inspection on 17 October 2023.
We understand the resident’s disappointment that the window renewal programme was deferred originally from 2023 to 2024/25. However, landlords have limited financial resources and need to prioritise their planned programmes to ensure best use of these resources and to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. Therefore, landlords may have to reprioritise their planned programmes and this may involve deferring some of their planned works, such as window replacements. Nevertheless, we do expect landlords to ensure that all enquiries regarding their planned programmes are given appropriate consideration and an explanation is provided to residents about any decisions made to defer works. We also expect landlords to meet their day-to-day repair obligations.
In this case, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows:
1. The landlord did not arrange repairs to the windows as a result of its inspection in September 2022, even though it did not have a precise timescale for the window replacements.
2. The landlord did not send a timely response to the resident’s enquiries in October 2022 when she raised concerns about the condition of the windows.
3. The landlord did not contact the resident to provide any updates regarding the window replacement programme or repairs to the windows prior to her contacting the landlord on 31 March 2023.
4. The landlord did not provide a timely response to the resident’s enquiry on 31 May 2023 about when the windows would be replaced. The evidence shows that the landlord only advised the resident that the programme had been deferred in its stage 1 reply dated 18 October 2023.
5. There was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the repairs to the windows, which were completed on 24 November 2023. This was over a year after the landlord had inspected the windows in September 2022.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using the complaints process to acknowledge the delay in resolving the window issues and its communication. It sought to put things right by ensuring the repairs were completed and by offering compensation. The landlord also stated in its stage 1 reply that its Joiner had agreed to fit the resident’s curtain pole to the bay window.
The landlord initially offered £240 compensation in relation to its handling of the window issues and at stage 2 it increased the offer to £400. Although the latter offer included a sum for heat loss issues, we have considered the entire offer in the context of its handling of the reported window issues. This is because the windows were the focus of the resident’s complaints about the internal temperature and heat loss.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that as a guide it may offer discretionary compensation of between £250 and £700 for failures that have had a considerable impact on the resident. For example, in cases where there has been little or no contact with the resident, it has failed to complete repairs or make adjustments. We would agree that the failings we have identified had a considerable impact on the resident, particularly the delay in repairing the windows and this impact was exacerbated by her vulnerabilities. We have therefore concluded that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate and in line with its policy. Consequently, we have made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.

The resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property

The landlord’s Tree Management Policy states:
1. Trees will not normally be pruned or felled due to problems with shade, falling leaves, fruit or flowers or interference with TV, mobile phone or wi-fi signal (residents should contact their service provider for a solution).
2. Tree work may be considered to deal with tree branches obscuring streetlights.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 to report that a tree from a neighbouring garden was overhanging her footpath. She said it was making the path slippery and was affecting the streetlamp and her phone line. As a result of the resident’s contact, the landlord’s Arborist inspected the tree. It is unclear when this inspection took place but the landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022 with the results of the inspection. It was reasonable that the landlord had inspected the tree within a month of the resident’s report and that it wrote to the resident with the results of the inspection.
The landlord stated that the tree would require some work to give adequate clearance over the footpath and to clear its branches away from the streetlamp. The landlord said it did not have a date for the works and that the resident should contact her service provider if there were any issues with her phone or internet service. The Arborist’s advice that the tree should be reduced to give clearance near the streetlamp was appropriate as this was in line with the landlord’s Tree Management Policy. It was also appropriate to advise the resident to contact her service provider in relation to her phone and internet as this was also in line with the policy.
In her stage 1 complaint dated 4 October 2023, the resident said she was complaining about overgrown trees in the neighbours’ gardens causing a loss of light and a slip hazard due to sap. The landlord’s records show that the Arborist carried out a further inspection of the neighbour’s tree on 16 October 2023 and found that the tree was in good health but was shading a streetlamp. It was reasonable that the Arborist had re-inspected the tree as it had been a year since the last inspection.
The landlord raised an order and sent it to a tree contractor on 20 November 2023. It was appropriate that an order had been passed to a contractor to prune the tree as it was obscuring a streetlamp. The landlord’s records show that the tree was pruned in December 2023.
It was a shortcoming that the matter had not been addressed earlier as the Arborist had identified that the tree was obscuring the streetlamp during the inspection in September/October 2022. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 11 December 2023 that following his inspection in 2022, the Arborist had deemed the tree to be a low priority and not a health and safety concern and therefore action had not been prioritised at the time. As the landlord’s Arborist had inspected the tree, the landlord was entitled to rely on his expertise and risk assessment.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property because:
1. The landlord’s Arborist inspected the tree in September/October 2022 to assess the risks and whether works were required.
2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022 to explain the Arborist’s findings. The advice it provided to the resident in relation to the tree was in line with its Tree Management Policy.
3. The Arborist re-inspected the tree in October 2023 and raised an order for a tree contractor to prune the tree.
We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property.

The resident’s concerns about communications with staff members

As part of the landlord’s stage 1 reply dated 18 October 2023, it commented on the resident’s dissatisfaction with the communication from the Neighbourhood Officer. It stated that the matter had been investigated by the Neighbourhood Coordinator who accepted that some communications had not been responded to. The landlord apologised for this and said it had addressed the matter with the relevant officers. It advised the resident that all future contact should be made through its Customer Service Centre as this would ensure all contacts were logged and monitored.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s Neighbourhood Coordinator had investigated the resident’s complaint about the lack of communication from one of its staff. It was reasonable that the staff member’s manager had investigated the complaint. It was also appropriate that having identified communication failures, the landlord apologised for these. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach. Finally, the manager had asked the resident to direct future communications through its Customer Service Centre to ensure enquiries were logged and monitored. This was again reasonable as the manager had provided advice to improve communication in the future.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2023 and said it was not just the Neighbourhood Officer who had failed to respond to her. She said this had caused her stress and pain. In its stage 2 reply dated 11 December 2023, the landlord said that its Neighbourhood Officer was happy to speak to the resident directly to apologise for the communication issues, but the landlord had already apologised on behalf of the organisation. This was reasonable as the landlord offered the option of the Neighbourhood Officer contacting the resident directly to apologise for the communication issues. However, it was also reasonable that the landlord had apologised on behalf of the organisation as it is responsible for the conduct of its staff.
The landlord added that it had carried out further investigations in relation to its communications with the resident and had found:
1. The Neighbourhood Coordinator said she could not find evidence she had been requested to contact the resident directly.
2. The landlord could not speak to the previous manager as he had left the organisation.
3. The landlord had checked its systems and could not find evidence of “numerous attempts” by the resident to contact the landlord, other than the ones it had already addressed.
4. The landlord reiterated its earlier advice that the resident should direct future contact through its Customer Service Centre.
When a resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff, we will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For example, we would generally expect the landlord to conduct interviews and gather evidence on which to make an informed decision. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord had investigated the complaint, concluded there had been failings and took steps to ensure the failings were not repeated in the future (by asking the resident to direct future contact through its Customer Service Centre).
We have therefore concluded that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about communications with staff members. Consequently, we have found there was no maladministration.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Procedure states:
1. A large proportion of the landlord’s vacancies will be allocated using a Choice Based lettings system. Eligible applicants that apply will be awarded priority banding, based on their housing need. If accepted onto the scheme, applicants can bid on a weekly basis (express their interest) on available properties.
2. Any changes to a resident’s application for rehousing, such as a change of circumstances must be done by the resident via their online portal. Once the changes are made, they will need to be verified by the verified and approved by the local authority.
3. A management transfer can be agreed for current tenants of the landlord who do not meet the criteria set out in the transfer policy but have an exceptional need to move.
4. If a current tenant is requesting an urgent management transfer, the matter will be referred to the landlord’s Neighbourhood Team for further investigation, including the reason for the move.
In her stage 1 complaint dated 4 October 2023, the resident said she was seeking a management move to a bungalow due to her accessibility needs. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that it was unable to agree a management transfer but that the resident had been awarded ‘silver banding’ based on her current needs. Our role is not to decide whether the landlord had assigned the correct priority to the resident’s rehousing application. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused. In this case, it was reasonable that the landlord had advised the resident of her current banding and confirmed it was satisfied she was in the correct banding based on her needs. It was also helpful that the landlord had explained to the resident that in her case it had removed the age restriction so she could apply for a bungalow even though she was under 55.
The resident explained in her stage 2 complaint dated 31 October 2023 that she had been on the waiting list for over 2 years and had been unsuccessful when bidding for properties. She explained that her current property was too large and she could not climb the stairs. In its stage 2 reply dated 11 December 2023, the landlord confirmed that its Lettings Manager had reassessed the resident’s rehousing application and had confirmed that she was in the right banding considering all her circumstances. As the resident had complained about the time she had spent on the waiting list, it was reasonable that the Lettings Manager had reassessed her application to check she was in the correct banding.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 reply that residents do not remain in a fixed position on the waiting list and her position would be different for each property. It added that her position for each property was dependent on the number of applicants for the property, their circumstances and their bandings. The landlord said the resident should continue bidding as there was high demand for the type of property she was seeking. It was helpful that the landlord had used its complaint response to clarify how the lettings system worked. It was also reasonable that it had attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining there was a high demand for its properties.
The landlord explained that its Neighbourhood Team had assessed the resident’s request for a management transfer and had decided that she did not meet the required threshold. However, it said that the resident should provide any updates if her circumstances changed. It was appropriate that the landlord’s Neighbourhood Team had assessed the resident’s request for a management transfer as this was in line with its Allocations and Lettings Procedure. It was also appropriate that the landlord had asked the resident to report any changes in her circumstances. This would enable the landlord to reassess the resident’s request for a management transfer as necessary. In our view, however, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had not provided further details about its management transfer criteria and why the resident did not meet these criteria. This would have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s decision and helped to make the process more transparent.
Overall, we have found that the landlord acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused because:
1. It had assessed the resident’s priority and advised her of the banding she had been assigned.
2. It had reassessed her rehousing application following her complaint about the rehousing process.
3. Its Neighbourhood Team had assessed whether she met the management transfer criteria and advised her of their decision.
4. The landlord had used its complaints response to explain to the resident how the lettings system worked and to help manage her expectations.
5. The landlord advised the resident to report any changes in her circumstances so it could reassess her application as appropriate.
We have therefore found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
For clarity and to explain our role, our Remedies Guidance states that we would not order a landlord to offer a resident a particular property. This is because there may be other applicants who have a higher priority for that property and therefore such an order would be unfair to the other applicants.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Policy states that at stage 1 it may extend the timescale in exceptional circumstances. In such cases, it will notify the resident of the new timeframe for a response and if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, it will agree this with the resident. At stage 2, if the landlord is unable to reply within 20 working days, it will contact the resident to agree an extension.
We wrote to the landlord on 2 October 2023 and provided details of a complaint that the resident had sent to us. We requested the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 4 October 2023, which was 2 working days later. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 18 October 2023, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded to the stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2023 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 reply. She provided various reasons for her dissatisfaction with the reply. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the next day (1 November 2023). The landlord had therefore acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 November 2023 and asked when she would receive a response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied on the same day and said it was still reviewing the complaint and would respond by 13 December 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023, which was 28 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The time taken to respond was longer than the 20-working day timescale in its Complaints Policy and was therefore inappropriate. Although the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2023 and gave her a date by which it would respond, this was only after the resident had chased the landlord for a response.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord accepted that there had been failings with its complaints handling and offered the resident compensation of £100. The amount offered by the landlord was in line with its Compensation Policy for service failures where there had been some impact on the resident over a short duration. As the period of delay with the stage 2 response was relatively short, we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been appropriate and proportionate to put things right. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree in the garden of a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about communications with staff members.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £500 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid. Our findings of reasonable redress in relation to the windows and the complaints handling are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.